# Economics 101



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2016)

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101


Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


actually crashes:
1) have mostly been caused by govt interference in economy

2) were easily avoided simply by not selling during the crash


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


Any "stock market crash" experienced was exponentially less devastating than the _permanent_ crashes that left-wing policy caused in the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



^ Moron


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 6, 2016)

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 6, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> ..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> .


1) a far far better idea than letting a soviet bureaucracy own and run the banks
2) self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > ..........Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Worked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................

I have some Real estate to sale you.........I've added perfume and wrapped it in a bow tie.......It's really nice..........do you want to buy it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 6, 2016)

Friedman should be give a lession in Econ 101 along with Keynes and Krugman, yeah.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Apr 6, 2016)

Ive never lost money in a stock market crash but I was never in it for short term gain.I could afford to sit tight and sit out the storm. Those who lost money - I have no sympathy with. If they couldnt afford to lose it they were in the wrong game.

However I have seen my government step in to save several banks who we "couldnt allow to fail".

In a similar vein I have seen tax payers money prop up the motor industry because ,  once again, we " couldnt allow it to fail".

Having done so I rather think that I have a right to some say in how these corrupt people conduct their business. After all. I pick up the tab.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> 
> As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.


Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, _genius_. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Apr 6, 2016)

Self regulation never works. Banks and casinos should not operate under the same brand.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Both sides were in on the bailout......but the bailout was bogus anyway with the Federal Reserve Back door open.........If you are saying those that failed should have been put under......their assets seized............for losing in the Casino of Wall Street then I agree............


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 6, 2016)

Understand ONE thing and you need no more:

*"When your outgo exceeds your income then your upkeep will be your downfall."*


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Only a liberal could cite the failure of free-market capitalism but providing "evidence" of


eagle1462010 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Yes....both sides were in on the bailout because both sides are now FULL left-wing policy supporters. Republican's are made up of Kennedy-era liberals and Democrats are made up of marxists/socialists/communists.

And YES....I'm absolutely saying that every bank, every auto manufacturer, etc. should have been left to fail and collapse. There is nothing dumber than propping up failure and that's exactly what the bailouts did.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


I would have seized their assets and put them out for the shit they pulled............They gambled and failed and should suffer a failures fate on the markets.........................

To the liberal comments..........I don't give a fuck what you want to call me................They put perfume on shit and nearly took our country down.............Hang them for all I care.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


But here is the problem - in all of your outrage and anger, you fail to reason _why_ all of this happened. Every part of it was the result of left-wing government intervention policy.

It was Bill Clinton's illegal and asinine 1997 Community Re-Investment Act (which was originally done by Jimmy Carter) which incentivized banks to "gamble". When it's the bank's ass on the line for the loan, they refuse to take risk. But the Dumbocrats, in their infinite socialist stupidity believed that everyone should own a home, even if they couldn't afford it. So the Act incentivized banks to make risky loans and promised them that they weren't on the hook for the loans - the tax payer would be via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banks, having no skin in the game, now started throwing money around wildly and irresponsibly.

It not only killed our economy, it also created the "housing bubble" as houses were bought and/or built for all of these people that couldn't afford it. Eventually many defaulted and the market became saturated with homes that banks were trying to get out from under with a fire sale. That caused all housing prices to plummet.

History has proven that liberal policy / government intervention has a failure rate of 100%.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Clinton signed it, and it was pushed for by the Republican party.............. both sides did the deal........and that signing allowed self regulation which proved to be a disaster.................


----------



## Dovahkiin (Apr 6, 2016)

Oh, you mean this guy?
William Keegan: So now Friedman says he was wrong


> *The economic quote of the month - and probably the decade - is that Milton Friedman now admits: 'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).*
> 
> So there we are. It takes some digesting, not least because we have it from the horse's mouth.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 6, 2016)

Conservatives stop at Econ 101 when the real complex world requires you to go through Econ 201 through Econ 505 to fully understand it. 

Taking a class that explains things with 'widgets' is a theory class, no application.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 6, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Conservatives stop at Econ 101 when the real complex world requires you to go through Econ 201 through Econ 505 to fully understand it.
> 
> Taking a class that explains things with 'widgets' is a theory class, no application.





IsaacNewton said:


> Conservatives stop at Econ 101 when the real complex world requires you to go through Econ 201 through Econ 505 to fully understand it.
> 
> Taking a class that explains things with 'widgets' is a theory class, no application.



There you have it.  Well said.  Economics is a social science, not a science.  And trying to spend your time placing the blame for everything that happens economically on any president is just plain stupid.  You can look at economic theory until you are cross eyed, and not be sure if you know what happened, much less what is going to happen.
At the same time, you can look at economic history and learn a good deal, assuming you are honest about it.  Problem with this board is that way too many are simply trying to back up their agenda. Many paid to do so.  Which makes their statements worthless.  As in this thread. 
Personally, I never could get interested in Milton, and others that were self avowed Libertarians.  Economists of that ilk were all the rage through the 80's, but then when they were found to be empirically wrong so often, they became about as popular as a fart in church.  They went out of demand quickly, and transitioned from a position of some power to has beens rather quickly. Milton more so, as people realized that as a libertarian he was loyal to an economic system that did not exist, and never had.
I have to admit that my economics came from more centrist sources, as those in nearly all schools do.  Milton Friedman would be better suited to colleges of the Liberty or Regent University ilk. Not actual colleges of higher learning, and not of learning without agenda.  Years ago, the concept of teaching Libertarian economics as a leading theory died a past do death.


----------



## Dovahkiin (Apr 6, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> Understand ONE thing and you need no more:
> 
> *"When your outgo exceeds your income then your upkeep will be your downfall."*


It's great that the government is the currency issuer, eh?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Milton "Ayn Rand" Friedman...Paid shill for Unfettered Capitalism.
Pure horse crap.
Try driving without rules and see how long it takes for tragedy to strike.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


That's a compliment coming from a certified retard such as yourself.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 6, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Ever hear of the Industrial Revolution?
Did enough people die to make you happy?


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 6, 2016)

let's see what his monetary policies did under Reagan:


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2016)

Agit8r said:


> let's see what his monetary policies did under Reagan:
> 
> View attachment 70526


Reagan and Bush gave us 2 crashes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Social democratic market economy practices are not left wing.  Unregulated free market means incredible crashes, child labor, and the decline of the workers' health medically, economically, and culturally.  You are a far, far right ignoramus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Friedman should be give a lession in Econ 101 along with Keynes and Krugman, yeah.



Keynes and Krugman have failed. They have a 30 year track record of fail in Japan and now the EU and the USA


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Funniest thing I've read at UMSB all day, "Social democratic market economy practices are not left wing."

LOL

Awesome Jake!  

Sent this to John Oliver and tell him you want to be his head comedy writer


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

In the rational world, they are not left wing.

In the rational world, you are so far right, you make JimBowie look mainstream.


----------



## gipper (Apr 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


What can we expect from our beloved Jake?  He thinks the R party is a radical right wing Nazi organization about to take over the WORLD.  

I tried to get him psychological help, because I so care about him, but he told me to F**K off.  Oh well.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually crashes:
> 1) have mostly been caused by govt interference in economy





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> self regulation worked fine, massive govt interference in the economy didn't


Self regulation NEVER worked and only produced repeated "PANICS."
Government regulation didn't begin until the Civil War but there were panics of 1814, 1817, 1819, 1837, 1839, 1842, 1857 and 1861 before the first banking regulation was ever passed.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 7, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Understand ONE thing and you need no more:
> ...


The government didn't start issuing currency until the Civil War and there were habitual panics before then!


----------



## gipper (Apr 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > actually crashes:
> ...


Yet you think government regulations work ignoring all the evidence of failure.  Government regulations can work, if we had honest law abiding politicians....but we don't.  Government is really code for Mafia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > actually crashes:
> ...


They were mostly local and all self corrected. FDR and the Fed combined their efforts to make the world worst economic collapse


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> In the rational world, they are not left wing.
> 
> In the rational world, you are so far right, you make JimBowie look mainstream.



Jake, your post only makes sense when you substitute the phrase "my own personal Bizzaroland private Idaho" for "rational world"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

gipper said:


> What can we expect from our beloved Jake?  He thinks the R party is a radical right wing Nazi organization about to take over the WORLD.  I tried to get him psychological help, because I so care about him, but he told me to F**K off.  Oh well.


 Good morning, gipper.  You are engaged in your role as the libertarian equivalent of Alinsky, imposing your beliefs on me and then demonizing them.  The mainstream GOP is mainstream America, for a fact.  The TPM and other far right groups are fascistic in some aspects, yes.  But your thinking is often as rigid as a Nazi so we give you the due you deserve as a libertarian, nothing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > In the rational world, they are not left wing.
> ...


You are now engaging in your own Alinsky imposition of your silliness on me.  You are a far supporter of failed economic theories.  Go to.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Just a pure bullshit lie. Every panic I listed was national in scope involving most or all the banks. You are dishonestly conflating "bank runs," which ARE local, with full scale national PANICS.

Since your first sentence is such an obvious LIE, why should anyone believe your second sentence is any less bullshit?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Frank is getting senile, ed.  He honestly believes what he writes, so, no, he is not lying.  He is just very wrong.


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...



*Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.*

Actually, 'too big to fail' is a Republican term. Rep. Stewart McKinney (R) popularized it.


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



There is no such thing as a free market. Never has been, never will be.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

The Progressive posts in this thread shows they continue to maintain their perfect economic ignorance and never bothered to watch the video


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Progressive posts in this thread shows they continue to maintain their perfect economic ignorance and never bothered to watch the video



*The Progressive posts in this thread shows they continue to maintain their perfect economic ignorance and never bothered to watch the video*

Yet you can't refute any of them. And you have seen the video.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Progressive posts in this thread shows they continue to maintain their perfect economic ignorance and never bothered to watch the video
> ...



Progressive moron, ignorant ramblings are self-refuting


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 7, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Worked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................



dear,
1) some banks had to be saved from liberal govt caused crash and many banks were allowed to fail 
2) saving them saved the nation from depression
3) they paid the money back
4) stupid liberals hate to bail out banks but love to bail out failed individuals who never pay back a penny!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



take the first one-  panic of 1814-1819. You can see govt was very very heavily involved. Get it?? 

Wiki:
Though driven by global market adjustments in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars,[8] the severity of the downturn was compounded by excessive speculation in public lands,[9] fueled by the unrestrained issue of paper money from banks and business concerns.[10]


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*Progressive moron, ignorant ramblings are self-refuting*

Your bloviating indicates you have.......nothing......as usual.


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Worked so well they had to be saved right.....................Nice back door the Federal Reserve has there.............It's a members only club though..................
> ...



*dear,
1) some banks had to be saved from liberal govt caused crash and many banks were allowed to fail 
2) saving them saved the nation from depression
3) they paid the money back
4) stupid liberals hate to bail out banks but love to bail out failed individuals who never pay back a penny!*

Which 'failed individuals?'


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 7, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



folks on welfare etc etc


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 7, 2016)

Ed is again citing his own work from wiki under the accords of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.  He does not have the balls to tell you that he is citing his own discredited work.  He is invoking the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [take the first one-  panic of 1814-1819. You can see govt was very very heavily involved. Get it??
> 
> Wiki:
> Though driven by global market adjustments in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars,[8] the severity of the downturn was compounded by excessive speculation in public lands,[9] fueled by the unrestrained issue of paper money from banks and business concerns.[10]


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You must accept that ed is the resident libertarian troll, paid by the far, far, far, far, far right to post dogma from bullshit crazy con web sites.  Ed is a congenital idiot, and we should all ignore him.  Poor guy.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> take the first one-  panic of 1814-1819. You can see govt was very very heavily involved. Get it??
> 
> Wiki:
> Though driven by global market adjustments in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars,[8] the severity of the downturn was *compounded by excessive speculation* in public lands,[9] fueled by the *unrestrained issue of paper money from banks and business concerns*.[10]


Talk about "seeing" what is not there just because you've been brainwashed to believe it's there!!!!!

There is not a single mention of the government, just Capitalistic speculation and BANKS  and BUSINESSES unrestrained by government creating paper currency.


----------



## OnePercenter (Apr 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



*folks on welfare etc etc*

Corporate or people?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Ed owns Frank.  Period.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



No stock market crashes in China or Venezuela, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Ive never lost money in a stock market crash but I was never in it for short term gain.I could afford to sit tight and sit out the storm. Those who lost money - I have no sympathy with. If they couldnt afford to lose it they were in the wrong game.
> 
> However I have seen my government step in to save several banks who we "couldnt allow to fail".
> 
> ...



*Having done so I rather think that I have a right to some say in how these corrupt people conduct their business. After all. I pick up the tab.
*
Which company did you "pick up the tab" for? Be specific.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Todd, stop the hypocrisy.  You whined when we the taxpayer bailed out the banks and underwrote the survival of the auto industry companies.

Your comment about stock crashes overseas is a Fallacy of Implied Analogy.  You give no support.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


They also have unregulated markets.
That's why their tiny elites are so wealthy compared to the other 99.999999%.
But nice try.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Todd, stop the hypocrisy.  You whined when we the taxpayer bailed out the banks and underwrote the survival of the auto industry companies.
> 
> Your comment about stock crashes overseas is a Fallacy of Implied Analogy.  You give no support.


*
You whined when we the taxpayer bailed out the banks and underwrote the survival of the auto industry companies.*


Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



China and Venezuela have unregulated markets?
Are you being treated for that head wound?
Sounds serious.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You want to tell the elite there how to conduct transactions?
The elite make up shit here to hold onto their wealth and the elite there do the same.
Some people ARE more equal than others; even in America.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Todd, stop the hypocrisy.  You whined when we the taxpayer bailed out the banks and underwrote the survival of the auto industry companies.
> ...


Yep, you did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Show me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt

Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt

It matters not who got our economy to this point


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never lost money in a stock market crash but I was never in it for short term gain.I could afford to sit tight and sit out the storm. Those who lost money - I have no sympathy with. If they couldnt afford to lose it they were in the wrong game.
> ...


All the UK banks. I think we still "own" all, or part, of a few of them. The sad thing is that no real action was taken after the crash and it will happen again in a few years.
We also had a "scrappage" scheme where you got government backed incentives for part exing your old car for a nice shiny new one. All the motor manufacturers benefited from that. 

I am not against government intervention but neither do I favour an open cheque book.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt
> 
> Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt
> 
> It matters not who got our economy to this point



Is one of those me whining about "*when we the taxpayer bailed out the banks and underwrote the survival of the auto industry companies"*?

Because I don't see it.
You know you can copy and paste my actual words if you feel they prove your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Sorry, I thought you were talking about the US.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lay Aside Political Lies And Take A Good Look At The Debt
> ...


Anyone can read your own words hanging your false statement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you say so.
So post my words. Hang me right here.
By posting the actual words that prove your claim. Post 'em.

I'll be here, waiting for you to show I'm a big liar. Waiting.
For you to post my words.
Here on this thread. Here.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You don't make the rules.  I made the charge, I posted the evidence, and you can't refute it.

It is what tis. 

Now refute or keep taking the boot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You were wrong. That's okay.
If you had the evidence, you'd post actual words, instead of links that didn't prove your claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You can deny your words all you want; I don't care.  The evidence is there for anyone who wants to open the links, which is exactly what you requested.  Now you want to move the goal posts.  You are condemned by your own words.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Post my actual words, then I can't deny them.
I looked at the links you posted. None of them prove your claim. Not even close.

Try again. Or remain a failure. Makes no difference to me.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101





Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Friedman was a brilliant man- of course many economists disagree agree on whether he was correct or not, in particular regarding various portions of his theories. 

However, his theory regarding inflation seems to have been proven to be incorrect- since the government has been infusing the country with money for years now and there has been no apparent affect on the inflation rate.

Among Friedman's positions:
*Drug policy*
Friedman also supported libertarian policies such as legalization of drugs and prostitution. During 2005, Friedman and more than 500 other economists advocated discussions regarding the economic benefits of the legalization of marijuana.[70]

*Gay rights*
Friedman was also a supporter of gay rights.[71][72] He never specifically supported same-sex marriage, instead saying "I do not believe there should be any discrimination against gays."[72]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



*However, his theory regarding inflation seems to have been proven to be incorrect- since the government has been infusing the country with money for years now and there has been no apparent affect on the inflation rate.*

What did his theory say, specifically, that you feel has been refuted by recent events?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 8, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Jake, we're well aware that your redistribution economics fails 100% of the time, that's why you have to lie about it. It's failing in Venezuela, it's failing throughout the EU, it has a 100% fail rate.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Generalizing very broadly as I understand his theory is that over expansion of the money supply by the government- in specific terms the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and the use of that money by the government- i.e. helicoptering the money- leads to over inflation.

Which we have not seen from a large expansion of the money supply.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*Generalizing very broadly as I understand his theory is that** over expansion** of the money supply by the government- in specific terms the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply.......leads to over inflation.
*
It must be then that the expansion of the money supply wasn't large enough to cause inflation.

No refutation of his theories there.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 8, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




Vietnam????


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How big of an expansion of the money supply is necessary then?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



That would depend on money demand.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 8, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It must be then that the expansion of the money supply wasn't large enough to cause inflation.
> 
> No refutation of his theories there.


But a total refutation of the Right-wing meme that QE 1, 2, 3, etc., was an over expansion of the money supply certain to cause inflation. Buy gold!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 8, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It must be then that the expansion of the money supply wasn't large enough to cause inflation.
> ...


The QE's jacked up the markets............Currency manipulation around the world deflates...............China especially.......to increase exports............................

Markets needed the QE's to jack them back up.......they didn't go up up and away without a Steroid shot.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It must be then that the expansion of the money supply wasn't large enough to cause inflation.
> ...



Plenty of people all over the world were afraid it would boost inflation.
They were wrong.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



Stock market crashes are part of an economy.

You'll never avoid them.

They were the reason Macroeconomics came into being.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Additionally, it inflated the price of housing so that homes became even more unaffordable.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Why just "liberals" ?

Why not everyone....

I hope you are not implying the right wing is any smarter in this area.


----------



## regent (Apr 10, 2016)

Econ is probably the softest of the soft sciences. Omit one economic factor and a whole new result can appear, in fact, lower or raise a factor amount and a different result might appear.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


I think it is just an admission that conservatives do not like and are not capable of being educated!


----------



## sjay (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Crashes are definitely part of a normal business cycle.Rates being kept artificially low negate the business cycle.So your prediction is useless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

sjay said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
Rates being kept artificially low negate the business cycle.
*
Who is doing that? How?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Still looking for that cogent argument that only liberals need  this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Still looking for that cogent argument that only liberals need  this.



Liberals are pretty stupid when it comes to economics.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Partial bullshit...
Black Monday was due to the failure of Supply Side Economics.
The DOT Com Crash was due to people being wary of using their Credit Cards over the Internet.
The Housing Crash was due to Supply Side Economics.

Go ahead, empty headed, greedy Neo-Cons, tell me how wrong I am.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*Black Monday was due to the failure of Supply Side Economics.*

LOL!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Should we measure how wrong you are in miles or kilometers ?

How was the housing crash due to supply side economics ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Yeah, programmed trading had nothing to do with it.

Do you recall how fast the market revived ?  It was fast.

Supply Side Economics ==> Something to blame your mother's warts on.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Still looking for that cogent argument that only liberals need  this.
> ...



Left wingers are pretty bad.

Right wingers are no better.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



You laugh yet you have NEVER rebutted the failure of Reagan's failed brainchild.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Cheap labor to decrease the cost of production and services combined with increasing demand and supply.
Unfortunately, GW allowed the infrastructure of our work force to be decimated in the process.

Now tell me how brilliant GW was.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



The housing bubble had to do with  cheap labor ?

Interesting.

And who is GW ?

I am not arguing with someone who type without drooling.

Be clear or shut up.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



This is about Black Monday....

Take your meds so you can focus.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



There is a chunk of right wingers that need help, amongst liberals, almost 100% clueless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You haven't explained how it was to blame, for me to rebut.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> 
> As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.


Are you aware that the financial sector was highly regulated in prior to 2008, during 2008, and subsequent to 2008?

So you're blaming the free market for the results of highly regulated market?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



GW Bush...whose administration and congress sent thousands of factories overseas, invited 3 million business visas to replace anybody who wasn't Indian, opened the Southern Border and ignored Jumbo Loans to anybody who could breath.

If you need me to be clear who GW is you must be under 20 years old.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes I did but you're a knee jerk Republican.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Regulations existing and being enforced are two very different things.
I totally agree that the software rejected Mortgages.
I also totally know that the software was overriden by pen and paper.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You know squat about Black Monday, little child.
Reagan was bullying banks into lending hundreds of millions of dollars to every non-US nation to build factories.
Guess what?  The corrupt of the best of them took the money and we were left with non-existent or empty factories.
Why?  Because no one did their due diligence to ensure that the loans were being utilized properly.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 11, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



People disputed that the Earth went round the sun. People still dispute that dinosaurs existed and we have evolved from other creatures over time.

I'm sure someone could dispute anything.
But yes, economics, starting with how to handle your own money, should be taught in schools.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


Milton Friedman was a well paid fraud.
Imagine trusting Big Business to exercise ethics.
I know too many Wall Streeters to believe that for a second.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



A "fraud" who won the Nobel Prize. 

There are different views is economics, there isn't one truth, simply said economics can't understand economics fully. They're making educated guesses. 

And like most things that are people with their own agendas and pushing their own thoughts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



No you didn't, but it was a moronic claim.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> A "fraud" who won the Nobel Prize.


Funny how the Right-wing hypocrites never had a problem calling Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman a "fraud."


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Milty was the inspiration for Ayn Rand's Objective Realism...If it feels good, do it.
Woopty doo that he wrote a paper describing an alternate universe.
The people on the Nobel Committee, by the way, are the elite.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Uh...yes I did.
In fact, I described it about 2 weeks ago and you pretty much stated that Republicans are angels from space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



No you didn't. It's a stupid claim.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Post 112.
Do you read ANY posts besides the ones your involved with?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I'm not sure I'm convinced by your argument.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


I'm sure I don't care.
Friedman's world works for about 1.3% of the world's population; the rest are disposable, plug and play slaves.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



If you don't care, why are you saying stuff then? 

I've not got an opinion on the guy, you had a chance to show what you think of him, and you didn't bother. So why come on to a site like this then?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


I did state what I think of his theory applied to the real world...it doesn't work.
You get Nobel Prizes when your work makes more money for the committee.
I've watched his videos...he assumes all people are honest.
In other words, he's failed Psychology.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*Reagan was bullying banks into lending hundreds of millions of dollars to every non-US nation to build factories.*

Link?

*Guess what? The corrupt of the best of them took the money and we were left with non-existent or empty factories.*

This makes no sense. Please explain further.

*Why? Because no one did their due diligence to ensure that the loans were being utilized properly.
*
Okay, if you say so.

Now when you get around to sharing your definition of Supply-Side economics and your explanation of how it was responsible for the Crash of 1987, I'll attempt to rebut your "argument".


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Listen, Young Republican, 90% of anything that happened before 2001 isn't on YouTube.

I presume you haven't looked up the definition of Supply Side Economics because your mommy hasn't taught you to use Google.
In fact, I posted the Wikipedia link 2 weeks ago and you still refuse to read it because it spells out the shithead Reagan was.

Prove there was an American Revolution using YouTube.
No dramatic reenactments; I want the actual footage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
Listen, Young Republican, 90% of anything that happened before 2001 isn't on YouTube.
*
That's your excuse for failing to prove your claim?
*
I presume you haven't looked up the definition of Supply Side Economics because your mommy hasn't taught you to use Google.
*
You claim it caused the crash. It's a stupid claim.
I'm not going to use the actual definition to discuss your claim.
You need to share your definition and share your explanation of cause and effect.
All your blathering about banks and loans has nothing to do with supply side.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Exporting manufacturing to lower prices and increase demand.
People lost jobs and careers with non-transferrable skills.
Many banks including Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover and Chemical were exporting Legal work to Ireland.
Loans were being made to foreign governments to generate overseas infrastructure to support the FoxConns of the world.
The technology, however, was not there to properly audit the use of the loans.
Importing Chinese and Japanese in IT to replace those of non Asian origin.
Buildings were being built in the Wall Street area for the ever growing population of Traders and Brokers and thousands of stores opened up to service the new Financial Powerhouse.
However, before the crash, everyone on Wall Street was sending stock values sky high until everyone realized they had been hustled by some very smart foreigners.

Sort of like today's China violation our Trade Agreements.

Different decade, same old lies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



OMG! That's awful! Terrible!

What does that have to do with supply side economics?

BTW, we don't have any trade agreements with China.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America.
> ...


---
Yes, Economics 101 is not sufficient.
To understand social dynamics, we also need Psychology 101 and maybe Political Science 101 too.
Daniel Kahneman comes to mind.
.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I know him as GWB, stupid, moron, or liar.

It's not my fault you think everyone speaks your language.

Go f**k yourself.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I think we have our first soon-to-be documented case of Bush derangement syndrome.

Bush was a moron....

But don't give him credit for other stuff.......


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


You recovered, millions didn't.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I guess we better delete all those results on Google.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



As you wish. Continue to make false claims.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Supply Side is funded by banks because the 3rd World shitholes that produce our products don't build factories with their own money.
Are you really that ignorant?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*Supply Side is funded by banks
*
That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Oh, I get it...Your Portfolio.
In other words, you didn't work on Wall Street and have zero idea of what happened there because you were too busy read the WSJ.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Main Street was mostly unaffected by the 87 Crash.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I are you on drugs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...









Graph: Real Gross Domestic Product

Point to the crash on the GDP chart.
Durr.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Garbage.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



It was at 95% of peak within about three months.  

It was driven, in part, by computerized trading.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



On that we agree wholeheartedly.  

But that argument is not what you are making.

You are simply trying to say something happened that clearly did not.

I hate Wall Street.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I can't laugh at this claim any harder.

I don't like the offshoring of jobs.

I also don't like that America seems to think the world owes it something.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's too funny...you are presenting a chart that shows there was no crash.
Don't you just love statistics?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If there was no off-shoring your portfolio would not be nearly as over-inflated as it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I'm showing a chart to back up my claim that the stock market crash mostly left Main Street unaffected.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It consolidated the top 8 Accounting Firms and many Financial Institutions.
Many people lost their jobs and those that were left to convert bought entities to their own databases and paper formats were working 100+ hours a week for many years.
I presume you have never been part of a team to convert a department of one company into the company employing you.
These mega institutions had hundreds of departments that had to be audited, converted and tested.
Especially difficult was the conversion of non-relational databases...a horrid experience.

This experience lasted well on into the Senior Bush years.

I guess for those living far away from Financially based markets it took much longer to feel the pinch of the major consolidation of discretionary cash.
Clinton simply got lucky with the DOT COM age.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 12, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Years and years later. Would have happened regardless.
Had zero to do with the crash.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - *freedom*. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), _all_ of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's *your *fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of _freedom_. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Bullshit.


----------



## regent (Apr 13, 2016)

It takes government intervention to keep capitalism, capitalistic.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Can I complement you on your incredible well put together argument.

I mean, you didn't get much data, but at least you got some theory.

You, on the other hand simply need one word to make your point.....

Well....wait....you didn't make a point.

You simply stuck your fingers in your ears and then stuck your head up your ass and said.....

Un uh..........


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Jesus H. Christ.  It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.  That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was.  Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards.  It was such a great new set of theories.  But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light.  Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.*

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Ahahaha! I guess when you're faced with facts which you cannot dispute, the only thing you can do is waste time saying "b.s."


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


Yeah, it's all leftist...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2016)

Reagan and Bush musta been leftist..


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear.  That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem.  Or mine.  Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy.  But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack.  Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
he has made his argument quite clear
*
Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?


----------



## P@triot (Apr 13, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Dude....Bush was a vintage Kennedy-era liberal. Just because someone runs with an "R" behind their name doesn't make them a conservative. And....even if it did....it doesn't mean that they implement 100% conservative policy across the board.

Lets break this down _honestly_ for a moment - shall we?

George W. Bush significantly grew the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security. He also grew is significantly with the NSA, etc. and a multitude of other polices and items. Now, is growing the federal government liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you _know _it.

George W. Bush significantly spent beyond the federal budget (to the tune of roughly $4 trillion dollars). Now, is adding to the federal debt liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you _know_ it.

George W. Bush shredded the U.S. Constitution by requesting and then signing into law, the Patriot Act. Now, is disrespecting and ignoring the U.S. Constitution liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you _know_ it.

So yes, too big to fail is 100% left-wing concept. It is government intervention. Not true free-market conservatism. Just because some liberal with an "R" behind his name engages in it, doesn't make it any less left-wing. I think we've just _proven_ that here today. Wouldn't you agree? (Of course you won't because our friends on the left are too disingenuous to engage in an honest discussion - it's all about the ends justifying the means).


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Funny how......

One idiot at Heritage writes a paper on the individual mandate......

And

Obamacare is a conservative idea........

or

Conservatives bashed Bush when he started wars and wasting money, but the left never listened..

But

Bush was a conservative......

The far left and far right don't care about the truth...

They only look for what fits  their fairy tales.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He has made his argument very clear.  That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool.  You want to understand what you want to understand.  That is how your belief system is formed.  Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you. 
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying.  I do not believe you are a congenital idiot.  Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself.  That is the extent of the help I will offer you.  More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 13, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The ONLY reason that 98.7% of people living in the US are not hanging elitists by telephone poles is because the shrinking Middle Class, of which I am a part, are being taxed to death to provide them with the, relatively speaking, good life.
Of course, Neo-Conservatives will pound their chests with pride, on ONE thread, that our poor are better off than the poor living anywhere else, whilst bitching on ANOTHER Thread that the lazy assed 98.7% should be allowed to starve.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*He has made his argument very clear.*

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

*It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.*

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.[/QUOTE]
Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear.  That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem.  Or mine.  Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy.  But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack.  Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?[/QUOTE]
*
he has made his argument quite clear
*
Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.  That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool.  You want to understand what you want to understand.  That is how your belief system is formed.  Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying.  I do not believe you are a congenital idiot.  Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself.  That is the extent of the help I will offer you.  More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

*He has made his argument very clear.*

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy.  I answered you.  You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool. 
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand.  You obviously do not want to understand.  And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy.  Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
*Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study*

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people
By ROB WAUGH 
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people. 

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing.  
Your welcome.  Again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Really, me boy.  I answered you.





Still can't post his argument? LOL!


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Really, me boy.  I answered you.
> ...


Really, me boy.  It is not my argument.  You seem to have a problem with comprehension.  Which proves my point, that cons like you are stupid.  I provide you with a self help source, discussing your particular malfunction, and you mistakingly suggest that you are having problems understanding "his" argument, and want my explanation.
I did explain why you have problems understanding.  Or, more properly, provided a quote and link to a proper study explaining the problem.  And, me boy, it is your problem.  No one else seems to have your problem.
Usually, one gets thanks for helping the mentally deficient.  In your case, you keep making stupid requests that you have no right to make.
Perhaps it is congenital?!?!?!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It's his argument. You said it was clear. Durr.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


There.  You seem to have caught on.  His argument, it is simple to understand. One problem, me boy.  You do not seem capable of understanding it.  Actually, two problems.  You seem to also think someone else should explain it.  Durr.  
Just try to imagine, me boy, how great it would be if you could do research for yourself, AND understand what you read.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



None of that explanation has the slightest thing to do with supply side or the crash of 1987.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Bullshit...and you've way overdone the boredom factor.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 14, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Have you always been this much of an underachiever.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.*
> 
> That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
> He's a poor confused liberal, like you.


Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear.  That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem.  Or mine.  Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy.  But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack.  Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?[/QUOTE]
*
he has made his argument quite clear
*
Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.  That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool.  You want to understand what you want to understand.  That is how your belief system is formed.  Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying.  I do not believe you are a congenital idiot.  Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself.  That is the extent of the help I will offer you.  More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

*He has made his argument very clear.*

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy.  I answered you.  You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool.
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand.  You obviously do not want to understand.  And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy.  Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
*Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study*

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people
By ROB WAUGH
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing. 
Your welcome.  Again.[/QUOTE]

This is supposed to prove what ?

The disorganized and (I will add) pretty stupid right wing kicked the crapp out of the left/far left in the last two off presidential elections........

What does that say about the right wing.....??

That they are smart ???  I don't think that is the case.

But, I am not sure the left wing can make any claims to being so bright.

The left can whine about how the right is so much easier led.....but there are more left wingers....

Something does not add up.....literally.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 14, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Dude....are you serious? The middle class - of which I too am a part - is being taxed to death by idiot Barack Obama and the idiot Dumbocrats. So why are you bitching about conservatives? It is *your* side of the aisle killing the economy and killing the middle class.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


The Fall Of The Market In The Fall Of 2008 | Investopedia

*While many saw great prosperity as the subprime market began to explode, others began to see red flags and potential danger for the economy.* Bob Prechter, founder of Elliot Wave International, consistently argued that the out-of-control mortgage market was a threat to* the U.S. economy as the whole industry was dependent on ever-increasing property values.*

As of 2002, government-sponsored mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had extended more than $3 trillion worth of mortgage credit. In his 2002 book "Conquer the Crash", Prechter stated, "confidence is the only thing holding up this giant house of cards." The role of Fannie and Freddie is to repurchase mortgages from the lenders who originated them, and make money when mortgage notes are paid. Thus, ever-increasing mortgage default rates led to a crippling decrease in revenue for these two companies. (Learn more in _Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008_.)

In the up-trending market that existed from 1999 through 2005, these mortgages were virtually risk-free. A borrower, having positive equity despite the low mortgage payments since his home had increased in value since the purchase date, could just sell the home for a profit in the event he could not afford the future higher payments.* However, many argued that these creative mortgages were a disaster waiting to happen in the event of a housing market downturn, which would put owners in a negative equity situation and make it impossible to sell.*

To compound the potential mortgage risk, total consumer debt in general continued to grow at an astonishing rate and in 2004, it hit $2 trillion for the first time. Howard S. Dvorkin, president and founder of Consolidated Credit Counseling Services Inc., a nonprofit debt-management organization, told the _Washington Post_ at the time, *"It's a huge problem. You cannot be the wealthiest country in the world and have all your countrymen be up to their neck in debt."*

*The Subsequent Rise of Creative Mortgage-Related Investment Products*
During the run-up in housing prices, the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market became popular with commercial investors. An MBS is a pool of mortgages grouped into a single security. Investors benefit from the premiums and interest payments on the individual mortgages it contains. *This market is highly profitable as long home prices continue to rise and home owners continue to make their mortgage payments. The risks however, became all too real as housing prices began to plummet and homeowners began to default on their mortgages in droves.* (Learn how four major players slice and dice your mortgage in the secondary market in _Behind The Scenes Of Your Mortgage_.)

Another popular investment vehicle during this time was the credit derivative, known as acredit default swap (CDSs). CDSs were designed to be a method of hedging against a company's creditworthiness, similar to insurance*. But unlike the insurance market, the CDS market was unregulated, meaning there was no requirement that the issuers of CDS contracts maintain enough money in reserve to pay out under a worst-case scenario (such as an economic downturn).* This was exactly what happened with American International Group (AIG) in early 2008 as it announced huge losses in its portfolio of underwritten CDS contracts that it could not afford to pay up on. (Learn more about this investment vehicle in _Credit Default Swaps: An Introduction_ and _Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG_.)

*Conclusion*
The events of the fall of 2008 are a lesson in what eventually happens when rational thinking gives way to irrationality. While good intentions were likely the catalyst leading to the decision to expand the subprime mortgage market back in 1999,* somewhere along the way the United States lost its senses. The higher home prices went, the more creative lenders got in an effort to keeping them going even higher, with a seemingly complete disregard for the potential consequences. *When one considers* the irrational growth of the subprime mortgage market* along with the investment vehicles creatively derived from it, combined with the explosion of consumer debt, maybe the financial turmoil of 2008 was not as unforeseeable as many would like to believe.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 14, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Well, dudeling, you do have a habit of avoiding fact.  At end of the last Republican President's term, our unemployment rate was soaring toward 10%. we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  Today the unemployment rate is about 5% and we have been gaining jobs every month for years.  Taxes have not gone up, me boy, except in the minds of conservatives  
Perhaps you just yearn for the good old days.  We should go back to high unemployment and few jobs, eh, dipshit???


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

I've been called a liberal before on this issue and simply don't care............The Stock Market is a gambling casino that creates bubbles..............and in this case a massive housing bubbles.................

Like sharks in a get rich quick chum line the MARKETS FED on the BUBBLE..............and drove housing prices through the roof BRAGGING on how much your house is worth now..............Aren't you happy that your property is worth more now.............was a favorite saying back then in the creation of the bubble........................

They created a giant mortgage bubble..........backed by the Government in securing BS loans...........so they were supposedly insured from loses when the bubble pops.............Driving prices to INSANE levels was STUPIDITY..............ALLOWING THEM TO DO SO WAS IGNORANT...............

And they NEARLY TOOK OUR COUNTRY DOWN WITH THEM.......................They knew what they were doing.........It's the Casino........

They knew what they were doing in the Subprime Crisis.
They knew what they were doing in the dot com bubble..
They knew what they were doing in the Y2K....

They start a feeding frenzy............People jump on board to make quick money.........and then they drive the market to insanity.......trying to make sure they weren't the one holding it when it crashes.............

So call me a liberal...............I don't fucking care.........they knew what they were doing the whole damned time.  So don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.............

Those Too Big to Fail................you are correct.........there should not be any such thing.........when they failed they should have had all their assets seized and PUT UNDER for NOT BEING ABLE TO BACK UP THEIR BETS.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

The Act creates a new category of regulated trading facility, known as a Derivatives Transaction Execution Facility or "DTEF", which is subject to less regulation (through a less comprehensive body of core principles) than a designated contract market. Operation as a DTEF will require registration under new Section 5a(c) of the CEA. The Act permits a narrower range of contracts to be traded on DTEFs than on contract markets, depending in part on the types of participants granted access. Transactions involving any commodity (other than an agricultural commodity) are permitted if the DTEF limits access to "eligible commercial entities"6 trading for their own accounts. If trading access is not so limited, the DTEF may permit transactions involving any underlying commodity that has (i) a nearly inexhaustible deliverable supply, (ii) a deliverable supply that is sufficiently large that the contract is "highly unlikely to be susceptible to the threat of manipulation" or (iii) no cash market. Trading access must be limited to eligible contract participants or persons trading through a futures commission merchant that has net capital of at least $20,000,000 and meets certain other requirements. The Act also permits trading on a DTEF of transactions that would otherwise be excluded or exempt from the CEA under the provisions described in other parts of this Memorandum.  The Act further authorizes a third category of trading facility, an "exempt board of trade". Becoming an exempt board of trade does not require registration with the CFTC; it merely requires receipt by the CFTC from the exempt board of trade of a notice in a manner to be prescribed by the CFTC. To qualify, an exempt board of trade may permit only contracts for sale of a commodity for future delivery (or options on such contracts or on a commodity) between eligible contract participants for which the underlying commodity has (i) a nearly inexhaustible deliverable

http://www.isda.org/speeches/pdf/analysis_of_commodity-exchange-act-legislation.pdf

The 2000 bill that allowed manipulation of commodities and less regulation..........SKY'S THE LIMIT GUYS......GAMBLE AWAY.......


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

Commodity Exchange Act Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Commodity Exchange Act

*GOALS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ACT*
The Commodity Exchange Act prohibited the manipulation of commodity futures prices and carried forward the requirement contained in the 1922 Grain Futures Act that* commodity futures trading on "regulated" commodities be traded only on licensed contract markets. Fraud was prohibited and brokerage firms handling customer orders (referred to in the industry as "futures commission merchants") were required to register with the federal government.* The Commodity Exchange Act was to be administered by a Commodity Exchange Commission composed of the attorney general and the secretaries of agriculture and commerce, a structure carried over from the Grain Futures Act.

Day-to-day regulatory responsibility was delegated to the Grain Futures Administration, later renamed the Commodity Exchange Authority, a bureau within the Department of Agriculture. Unlike the legislation adopted in the securities industry, no authority was given to the government to control the level of margins in the futures industry. Rather, the government was given the authority to limit the size of speculative positions by individual traders or those acting in concert with each other. The Commodity Exchange Act also sought to stop commodity options trading on regulated commodities because such instruments were viewed to be highly speculative.


Well lets get rid of that regulation.........which in a nut shell is IF YOU AREN'T IN THE BUSINESS you don't get to trade it..........

After it's not there...........HELL ANYONE CAN TRADE IT..........So they sold it back and forth on the commodities market, stock piled it, and drove our FUCKING GAS PRICES UP...............So Morgan Stanley can reap massive profits from buying and selling oil over and over and over and over again.......and Goldman Sachs BTW...........so the AVERAGE AMERICAN can get FUCKED AT THE PUMP.

Isn't that SHIT JUST DANDY...............

All of these asshats are tied to the Government......and lobbying..............and are playing CRONY CAPITALISM...........Good job...........


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

Finally.......I have better things to do today...............

Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 14, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


I suggest you stop watching Fox and realize that both Parties are leading us into the quicksand.


----------



## Tehon (Apr 14, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Finally.......I have better things to do today...............
> 
> Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and


Hey lib, how does it feel to be right for a change.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Apr 14, 2016)

Tehon said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Finally.......I have better things to do today...............
> ...


You feel better now.................good............Now go to another thread and praise Bernie on how increasing taxes by 18 Trillion over 10 years is good for us.


----------



## Tehon (Apr 14, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Let your inner Lib out! Bernie hears you and wants to help.
Reforming Wall Street - Bernie Sanders


----------



## anotherlife (Apr 14, 2016)

Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market.  Free lunch maybe, but not free market.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 14, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.*
> ...


*
he has made his argument quite clear
*
Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.  That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool.  You want to understand what you want to understand.  That is how your belief system is formed.  Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying.  I do not believe you are a congenital idiot.  Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself.  That is the extent of the help I will offer you.  More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

*He has made his argument very clear.*

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy.  I answered you.  You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool.
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand.  You obviously do not want to understand.  And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy.  Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
*Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study*

Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people
By ROB WAUGH
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing.
Your welcome.  Again.[/QUOTE]

This is supposed to prove what ?

The disorganized and (I will add) pretty stupid right wing kicked the crapp out of the left/far left in the last two off presidential elections........

What does that say about the right wing.....??

That they are smart ???  I don't think that is the case.

But, I am not sure the left wing can make any claims to being so bright.

The left can whine about how the right is so much easier led.....but there are more left wingers....

Something does not add up.....literally.[/QUOTE]
It is not about whether the right wing or the left is correct.  It is a study, using valid methodology. And it is one of many, many such studies. It has nothing at all to do with elections or numbers of the left or right. Sorry it is so hard for you to follow.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Thank you for proving the failures of liberal policy. Nobody (certainly not conservatives) dictated a policy forcing production overseas. But what happened was ignorant liberals (policy setters) mixed with greedy liberals (minions who mooch off of society) combined to create a taxes and insane regulations which made it an exponentially better deal for businesses to move their operations overseas.

It's proof once again about the failure of liberal policy. The U.S. should be such a deal for businesses (lowest corporate taxes in the world, most minimal regulations) that not only would no American company even contemplate taking their operations overseas, but that foreign companies would actually bring their operations here.

But...we can't expect liberals to understand this given their long history of proven that even basic economics is beyond their grasp.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2016)

anotherlife said:


> Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market.  Free lunch maybe, but not free market.


Oh there is. The U.S. was built on it starting in 1777. Then around the turn of the 20th century, Karl Marx introduced his failed to ideology to the world and the lazy, greedy liberal latched on and refuses to accept that it is failed.

We _could_ return to true free-market capitalism. We just have to figure out how to cure the cancer known as liberalism.


----------



## Tehon (Apr 15, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market.  Free lunch maybe, but not free market.
> ...


The US constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress was vested with the authority to regulate interstate commerce at that time. That is not to mention the powers that States had prior to that time. A free market never existed in America.


----------



## P@triot (Apr 15, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...


The lack of regulation is not what dictates free market my friend. It's the government picking and choosing winners and losers that ended the free-market. For instance, if Congress dictates that every company has to pay a 10% tax rate - that doesn't eliminate the free-market. But when the federal government gives failed green energy companies like Solyndra $500 million, _that_ ended the free-market. When the federal government bails out GM and Chrysler, _that_ ended the free-market. When the federal government bailed out Wall Street banks, _that_ ended the free-market.

The free-market is not the complete and total absence of regulations (that would just flat out be anarchy). It's all companies being permitted to stand on their own or fail on their own based on the products and services they provide and how they run their company.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 15, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Excuse me, dumbass, but Reagan started importing Chinese and Japanese computer programmers back in 1982 or so.
You  really are one ignorant ass.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 15, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market.  Free lunch maybe, but not free market.
> ...


If they were free markets then no tariffs would be in place, but guess what, the US had tariffs..


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 15, 2016)

Also, Free Trade is a liberal philosophe...theory...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> It is not about whether the right wing or the left is correct.  It is a study, using valid methodology. And it is one of many, many such studies. It has nothing at all to do with elections or numbers of the left or right. Sorry it is so hard for you to follow.



My side hurts I am laughing so hard.

This study being quoted by the Daily Mail does not even supply a definition of conservative.  That, in and of itself, would be amazing. 

How did  they classify someone as conservative.

Next, what do they contrast that against....liberals ?

Or the left wing (there is a huge difference).

In the caption of the photos of Obama and Romney it says "left wingers are more open minded" and point to Obama's election as a case in point.  Are they saying that left wingers voted for him because he was black (in effect calling them racist) ?  I didn't vote against him because he was black.  I voted against him (and threw up both times) because he represents an ideology (not an open minded one for sure) that I don't agree with.

Even the paper looks stupid.

Then, to cap it off....gays are glitter-bombing Romney because of his points of view.  Love that those open minded types can't leave someone they disagree with along.

Yep...open minded....the left (and right) wing is as tolerant as hell....of anyone who agrees with them.  Disagree...and you'll find a different side.


----------



## regent (Apr 15, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



Much of the regulating of the market was done by the states, they regulated business with laws, licenses, permits and so forth.


----------



## anotherlife (Apr 16, 2016)

When a country has open frontiers, you get a temporary free market, like the 19th century USA.  Or when a new technology is born, like today's gaming industry.  But these are only temporary transients leading to consolidation.  Part of the consolidation process is that some competitors capture government to legislate themselves into a position of global industry control, and at that point free market is cornered away and becomes history.  We live in a world of consolidated markets, and with ever higher technologies, consolidations are ever faster.  They should stop teaching so much about free market models in schools.  They hardly ever apply.  Mass fooling of students.  Brrrrr.


----------



## Tehon (Apr 16, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


The Tariff Act of 1789 didn't lay a tax on all business, only foreign business. It was done to protect American enterprise from cheaper foreign products, in effect to pick winners and losers. By your definition, not a free market.


----------



## anotherlife (Apr 16, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Also interesting is that this is applied consistently the opposite way in the 21st century, to protect foreign businesses and stop American ones.


----------



## AdvancingTime (Apr 22, 2016)

The real economy exist somewhere far from Wall Street and can be seen in parts of America where most of us live. After eight long years of near or zero interest rates, massive government deficits, and watching tons of money and stimulus being poured into the economy we remain mired in slow growth.

In the end  our future has a way of being tied to reality and certain economic laws as well as laws of nature that hope and delusion cannot defy. While these bonds can be ignored for a time the force they have over us at some point will suddenly pull us crashing to the ground. More details in the article below.

 http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-economy-beyond-our-financial.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Friedman should be give a lession in Econ 101 along with Keynes and Krugman, yeah.



Keynes is failing all over the planet from Asia to the EU to America.  

Japan is in its THIRD DECADE of keysian fail


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

The lesson here, Frank, is you don't know economics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> The lesson here, Frank, is you don't know economics.



Sure, Jake


----------



## gipper (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> The lesson here, Frank, is you don't know economics.


Must be you think Keynesian-ism works. 

You can't be so dumb...or maybe you can.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

Two of Friedman's little bitches are out early today.


----------



## gipper (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two of Friedman's little bitches are out early today.


why do you love Keynes, when his economic policies have proven to be failures?

Are you stupid or just uninformed?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

A libertarian simply can't comprehend economics, so there is no need to explain it to you, gipped.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 22, 2016)

it's like a Monthy Python skit. Perhaps if we lower interest rates further...


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two of Friedman's little bitches are out early today.
> ...


Being a R. Regan fan, you must be a believer in Supply Side, AKA Reaganomics, eh.  Even though, in the end, rr was not.


----------



## gipper (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> A libertarian simply can't comprehend economics, so there is no need to explain it to you, gipped.


So you do think Keynes offers an effective economic plan...proof you are very simple and have failed to learn from history.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

gipped, you are not competent, based on all of your postings, to have this explained to you.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> A libertarian simply can't comprehend economics, so there is no need to explain it to you, gipped.



Libertarians must first come to grips with the hard fact that there is and has never been a successful Libertarian country, economically or socially.  Which, of course, makes it impossible to have an actual conversation.  It is a whole lot like simply making up an economic policy, from whole cloth, and arguing it based on theory only.  Kind of like Ayn Rand, actually. 
Or, you could simply say you are a Vulcan, and believe in Star Wars society.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

Don't knock Vulcans.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Don't knock Vulcans.


I would never knock Vulcans.  The major difference between Vulcans and Libertarians is that Vulcans know they are involved in fantasy.


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A libertarian simply can't comprehend economics, so there is no need to explain it to you, gipped.
> ...


Now _that_ is hilarious (in the "that was the most ignorant thing ever said" kind of way). When the U.S. declared independence in 1776, it was the _ultimate_ "libertarian society". There was no government at all and the Constitution wouldn't be drafted for 11 more years or ratified for another 15 years. There were no minimum wage laws. No unions. No occupational health regulations. I mean, there was _nothing_. And all that pure libertarian society did was create the greatest super-power the universe has _ever_ seen.

After it was built, Dumbocrats decided they wanted to take it over and implement Keynesian and Marxism because they _sounded_ so good. All that has resulted in is America becoming a staggering $19 trillion in debt (worst in the world), education levels plummeting, freedoms plummeting, record number of food stamps, etc.

The truth is - there has *never* been a successful socialist country. _Ever_. It has a 100% failure rate. Sadly, because of man's desire for power and control over others (as you demonstrate every day), only one nation ever attempted a libertarian society. It was the result of modest men who didn't desire power but rather, desired freedom. Men like George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. Benjamin Franklin. And it was the greatest success story ever known. It has a success rate of 100% (because nothing is more motivating or empowering than _freedom_).

Thanks for playing junior. Truly. But your incredible display of ignorance here completely disqualifies you for credibility moving forward. You might want to create a new fake account and try again or move on to another board.


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Don't knock Vulcans.
> ...


The major difference between Vulcans and Liberals is that despite being fantasy, even Vulcans put more effort into providing for themselves and being independent.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Wow.  That was an interesting view of economic history.  Perhaps you have some links?
For instance, did you know that our founding fathers did not trust corporations?

1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.

2. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
— Thomas Jefferson.

Did you know that our founding fathers believed in liberalism:

 “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Did you know that our founding fathers believed in taxes:

 “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

let me know if you need more education.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I said libertarian.  You sound confused.


----------



## Tehon (May 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


*And all that pure libertarian society did was create the greatest super-power the universe has ever seen.*

 All that libertarian society did was cause fears of economic instability which led directly to our centralized form of government.


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> For instance, did you know that our founding fathers did not trust corporations?
> 
> 1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
> — Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.



Yeah genius....they were _true_ libertarians. It was liberals like Woodrow Wilson and FDR that usurped the Constitution and turned everything into centralized planning and control - including banking.

That's twice now that your own words proved your own position wrong. Would you like to go for a third???


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Which lead to $19 trillion in debt, 48 million on food stamps, 96 million out of the labor force, and a significant loss of freedoms which leads to a significant loss of innovation:

“Liberty … is the great parent of science and of virtue; and … a nation will be great in both, always in proportion as it is free.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 24, 1789)


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Did you know that our founding fathers believed in liberalism:
> 
> “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington



Did you know that you are misconstruing what George Washington said? Notice he doesn't mention anything about money, benefits, healthcare, etc.? Notice everything said was about justice and liberty - or everything you and your ideology stands _against_?

It's because your idea of "liberal" is the modern day meaning - greedy socialists more interested in handouts than freedom and liberty. George Washington was the exact opposite - willing to trade every penny he ever knew for freedom and liberty.

"... the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." - Thomas Jefferson and our founders 1776


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
*
Love that fake quote!


----------



## P@triot (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> For instance, did you know that our founding fathers did not trust corporations?
> 
> 1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
> — Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.
> ...



So let me get this straight - the moron who is too lazy to fact check liberal propaganda posts a fake quote and wants to know if *I* need more education?!! Um...you _might_ want to take a look at this junior:

_The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has *not* been found *anywhere* in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until *after* Jefferson's lifetime_

Private Banks (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Let me know if _you_ need more education junior (you _clearly_ do)


----------



## Tehon (May 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Thomas Jefferson also more famously wrote "that to secure these rights ( Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Government is not the problem, it is necessary, our inability to maintain our government is the problem.


----------



## P@triot (May 3, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



So that raises a great question. Why did these men - who just escaped oppression - institute _any_ government at all? Why not just live without government? Each man completely free to do whatever they wanted? Why even risk granting any institution power? Do _you_ know?


----------



## Tehon (May 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


They thought government was necessary to securing liberty. It's in the Declaration of Independence. I quoted it above.

He also stated as much in a letter to Madison.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
Jefferson Letter to Madison - Archiving Early America


----------



## P@triot (May 3, 2016)

Tehon said:


> They thought government was necessary to securing liberty



I'm impressed! Most people fail that question. But to be very specific, it wasn't so much "liberty" (as they have more of that without government) - it was to *secure our rights*.

That is the _only_ purpose of government. Anybody who says anything else (including Abraham Lincoln who made one of the worst comments ever regarding government) is dead wrong. Government does not exist to help the poor. To feed the masses. To create safety nets.

All of that is 100% illegal under our Constitution and our government was not designed to fulfill those roles. Government exists simply to *secure our rights*. We need to return to that and leave everything else up to the people.


----------



## Tehon (May 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > They thought government was necessary to securing liberty
> ...


The supreme court says otherwise.
United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

13. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have power

"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,"

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 297 U. S. 64.

14. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 297 U. S. 65.

15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 297 U. S. 65.


----------



## P@triot (May 3, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


The Supreme Court is simply *not* empowered to say "otherwise". They are the judicial branch and only the legislative branch can create law. Furthermore, no where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself. Period. Can't be disputed.

And citing the times they violated the law is sort of nonsensical. It would be like me raping and murdering woman, and then giving the dates and names of all of Ted Bundy's victims as "proof" that I was allowed to rape and murder women. The Supreme Court was not a "supreme court" in 1936. By that point it has been perverted into political activists looking to rubber stamp the agenda of which ever party appointed them to the court. The U.S. Constitution is _crystal_ clear and does not require a liberal political activist to explain what it says.


----------



## Tehon (May 3, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


You win some you lose some I guess. The power of judicial review has been inferred upon the court. And the court has ruled time and again that congress can spend for the general welfare. Don't give up the fight though.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 3, 2016)

Tehon said:


> . And the court has ruled time and again that congress can spend for the general welfare. Don't give up the fight though.



And no where have the liberals spent more for the general welfare than in the black community. The sweet, sensitive, caring general welfare spending has amounted to a near genocide. Liberals should be so proud! Spike Lee just made a movie called Chi-Raq (or something). What he said was you are safer in Iraq than  Chicago after the liberals have bombed Chicago with the general welfare spending.


----------



## Richard-H (May 5, 2016)

The purpose of government is very well stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It's by far the most important part of the Constitution. The entire rest of the Constitution is only to fulfill the requirements of the preamble.

Focus on the phrases 'establish Justice' and 'promote the general Welfare' - and keep in mind that 'Liberty' meant 'freedom from your employer' more than anything else at the time the Constitution was written:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Richard-H said:


> 'Liberty' meant 'freedom from your employer'



100% wrong!!!! Any evidence at all or really just a lie??


----------



## Shikica (May 22, 2016)

Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Shikica said:


> Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.



There was a period of time when a large number of economists were enamored with the concepts of Libertarianism.  Not that they believed it was a workable economic system, but that it had useful concepts.  So, the concept of supply side economics was new and interesting, but largely unproven.  Until Reagan's presidency.  And that put the end to the wide spread belief in SS economics as being workable.  The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.  So, Reagan reverted to spending on a grand scale, and the results were good.  Very Keynesian policies.  Raise taxes a number of times and spend like crazy, some in stimulative ways.  
Net result has been that SS economics classes are hard to find, and economists have left the great experiment in droves.  However, at the same time, Friedman's economic system of choice, Libertarianism, has gained a great deal of support by politicians and wealthy people who mostly know it will not happen, but that the road to libertarianism is paved with gold for people that are wealthy.  And it is supported with big money in "think" tanks and by conservative politicians, and publicized  with millions of dollars from the far right.  And hundreds of millions of money in politics.  
So, for me, I have long since given up on libertarianism as being a workable economic concept set.  We have never had a successful libertarian economy, with over 200 nations in this world.  But the concepts still are believed by many, many people who get their ideas from the millions of dollars spent on the dogma meant to shape their "beliefs".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Shikica said:
> 
> 
> > Milton Friedman was the first economist that I ever studied and he introduced many concepts to me for the first time. But since then I've expanded by understanding of the diversity in economics (as well as its history) and while Friedman's contributions on the whole are valuable his final position requires assumptions which are neither tolerable nor reasonable to me.
> ...



*The great experiment of dropping tax rates and stopping gov spending resulted in the second highest unemployment rate this century.
*
Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......

Step 1 Cut tax rates.....
Step 2...
Step 3...
etc. etc.
Step Y Unemployment climbs.....

Use as many steps between 1 and Y that you feel you need.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Shikica said:
> ...


Why do you ask.  I have no doubt that you know.  So, your turn.  Why don't you explain why unemployment went from 7.4% to 10.8% in under 2 years AFTER the tax decrease.  It is, as you well know, very, very simple.


----------



## Shikica (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Ultimately I agree with you that a completely libertarian economy would fail in the modern age to deliver on several key indicators (Note: every libertarian believes in some degree of government monopoly, just with respect to few industries). However if you are frustrated with people on the other side ignoring your arguments, I think that you should reflect for a moment on what you're saying. Unemployment rates are based on hundreds of different indicators, and the tax rate is more like the membrane shifting between all of them. Yes it's very important to consider it, but the situation was and is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

It's best to attack Friedman's position by calmly looking at the assumptions that he makes in his research and policy decisions (his real life policy decisions, not the generic "cut taxes and privatize water" you see online; Friedman actually made policy recommendations to different governments and so you have concrete examples to choose from). What matters is not that one extreme system doesn't work - but rather whether or not we can craft an ideal system. And it makes no sense to not study at least the essence of a failed system in hopes of finding materials which may be salvaged to build our vessel to an ideal world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Why do you ask.*

Because you claim one occurred because of the other. So show me how.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Shikica said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I agree completely.  We have worldwide economies that have varying degrees of capitalism, and socialism.  Neither, in my opinion, are good or bad.  They are simply pieces of the economic fabric of each nation.
On the other hand, we have the most capitalistic nation of any major advanced nation, I believe.  And in many areas it is not working well.  So, where are the problems?  Depends on your outlook, but based on years of study I have zero doubt that no nation can do well with the income inequality that we have.  And that no nation can continue to do well with the related money in our politics.  So those are my hot buttons.  And Laissez Faire economics or related Libertarian social economic systems find those problems to be non issues.  Which, in my look at history and at our current situation, is not just a moral or ethical issue, but a substantive reason to expect our nation to fail


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Shikica said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Nah.  I think not.  Because in my humble but correct opinion, you are playing games.  And I choose not to play.  If you have a point, make it.


----------



## Shikica (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Shikica said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Everything you said was reasonable but it doesn't make much of an attempt to attack common free market doctrine.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Shikica said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Shikica said:
> ...



I think we all have an understanding of what common free market doctrine is.  Problem is, we all have a different understanding.
If I go as far back as far as  Adam Smith, the biggest problem he seemed to wrestle with was what would happen with corporations as they continued to gain in size and, and more importantly, monopoly power.  And he had a simple answer to monopoly, which was basically to use the gov to regulate it. And over the years, we developed antitrust legislation.  Clayton, Sherman, etc.  Problem is, the power of corporations always overtakes those laws as they gain control of the politics.  And, I think everyone would agree that antitrust legislation may be in the books, but is no longer used to stop monopoly power.  And does NOTHING to address money in politics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Shikica said:
> ...


*
you are playing games. And I choose not to play.* 

I agree, proving your claims is a losing game for you.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


What you did was play your little and normal game.  I fish.  You are fishing in another way.  Tossing your little bait out, and waiting to see what you catch.  Just a game. 
What I did was make a statement of fact.  Not even controversial.  If you think it interesting, or controversial, or have some other interest, try conversation. 
You see, I gave you respect.  I assumed that you knew, and still assume that you know, why the ue rate went where it went.  That is very, very, very simple economic history.  So, if you want to keep playing games, play with someone who wants to play games.  I am too old for that kind of a waste of time.  Gave it up before I hit puberty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?

Walk thru the steps......


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did not say that dropping tax rates caused anything.  Bad assumption on your part.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Excellent!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, not yet.  You have not learned anything yet.  Next question?  What does cutting taxes cause?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
You have not learned anything yet.*

I've learned that you're not as dumb as I first thought.
*
What does cutting taxes cause?
*
Economic growth.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You have no real idea of how smart or dumb I am, nor I you.

Economic growth?  
In some cases. 

Economic slowdown?  
In some cases.
 But first, it causes cancellation of projects and unemployment. 
What does that cause?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
But first, it causes cancellation of projects and unemployment.
*
Really? Can you show any cancelled projects as a result of Reagan's tax cuts?


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Bad choice of word on my part,  Projects are generally paid for and very hard to cancel.  What happened was that budgets were cut across the board, with exceptions.  The result was a huge employment cut and a downward spiral toward a 10.8% unemployment rate.  So, millions lost jobs.  Where from I could look up, but not sure why you would ask


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*What happened was that budgets were cut across the board, with exceptions.
*
So you can show a year over year drop in spending in Reagan's first term, before the recession?

*but not sure why you would ask
*
Because the reason for the jump in unemployment was clearly not the tax cuts or the supposed spending cuts that I'll wait for you to prove actually happened.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
What occurred, in general, was spending was cut to non military areas, and increased in military areas.*

In general, baloney.
*
A major shock occurred that caused unemployment spikes.*

A major shock? Can you be more specific?


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?


Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started, and unemployment DECREASED right after Reagan began his multiple tax increases and massive spending increases.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do cuts in tax rates cause higher unemployment or not?


Reagan proved they do!
Who can argue with the results of St Ronnie's policies?


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What does cutting taxes cause?
> *
> Economic growth.


Not for Reagan. As you can see from the chart, GDP fell from St Ronnie's 1981tax cuts and rose after Reagan started raising taxes in 1982.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan dropped tax rates. Why do you feel that caused unemployment?
> ...


*
Probably because unemployment INCREASED dramatically right after the tax cuts started
*
Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What does cutting taxes cause?
> ...



_Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.__[4]_

Thanks. I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims.

Can you post the chart that shows 7% GDP growth after Obama raised rates?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What they said, if I can believe their lying eyes, was revenue decreasing in real terms, and unemployment going through the roof.  Did you notice??  So, me boy, they had two options:  1.  Lower interest rates.
2.  Reaganomic proceedures, lower taxes and decrease spending.
3.  RAISE TAXES, SPEND STIMULATIVELY.
Now, being supply side guys, and having tried that in early to mid 1981, what did they do to attack the rapidly rising unemployment and increasing deficit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Spending started to increase by the first part of '82. And taxes were increased to raise revenue.*

Spending definitely increased in 82. Also in 81 and 80. Because it was never cut.
The 81 tax cuts were phased in. Which taxes do you think were raised? By how much?
*
was revenue decreasing in real terms
*
If decreased revenue hits increased spending, deficits would rise.
We should all agree that happened.

What was the major shock?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Can you post the chart that shows that you have gone and fucked yourself??
You are trying, as hard as you can, to rewrite history with cherry picked data.  Not going to work for you, me boy.  
Can you tell us why, after trying to lower taxes and decrease spending on non military items, and creating a 10.8% ue rate, they did not attack the problem with more supply side measures?  
Explain why raising taxes, spending like a drunken sailor, nearly tripling the national debt, and increasing the size of the federal governor helped the economy so much??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*You are trying, as hard as you can, to rewrite history with cherry picked data.*

That's Ed's chart.

You still don't know why unemployment spiked in 1982? Are you 20 years old?
*
Explain why raising taxes
*
Which taxes? How much?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...





Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



Are you suggesting that Socialist countries do not suffer stock market crashes?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 24, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> 
> As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.



Is the alternative a more socialistic economy, will that eliminate crashes?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


I'm stating that our current Economic and Fiscal Policy is not as perfect as Greeditarians would have us believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Y*es, well, Reagan was not president in 1980, and his policies did not take effect until mid 1981,  
*
Great, so show me his spending cuts. Oh, right, spending wasn't cut.
*
1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.*

_
In 1988, __libertarian__ political writer __Sheldon Richman__ described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser __Bruce Bartlett__ wrote in __National Review__ that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."__[10]__ *However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage*.__[11]__ Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.__[11]_

*For con tools, there was no shock.  For the politicians who wanted to be re-elected, and for the unemployed, it was the skyrocketing ue rate. 
*
You said a major shock caused unemployment spikes. Now you say the shock was the spike? LOL!

So he cut taxes and didn't cut spending, so how did Reagan cause unemployment to spike?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
you are the one who is not explaining why you think it was going up in 1982.
*
When you finally explain the cause, I'll give you the real cause.

*Told, you,
*
Yes, his tax hikes were cancelling some of his future cuts.
Was that a bad idea? Should he have cut even more?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Wow, really going out a limb, our system is not perfect. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


You know why? Because ignorant liberal socialism has mucked up at least 70% of our "free-market". Guess what would happen if we returned to a _true_ free-market, Dumbocrat-free? We'd see significant prosperity instead of this partial prosperity, partial poverty nonsense that liberals keep handing us.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Same reason unemployment decreased when Reagan began his multiple tax increases.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes, but ed, you are logical.  You are following the process with an open mind.  Tax increases were to provide revenue to halt the out of control deficit.  Problem was, for the debt at least, reagan spent more tnan the taxes brought in.  But on the good side, the spending was stimulative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



"t*he fiscal 1982 budget that was proposed by Reagan represented a.reduction of $44 billion, or 5.7%, and all categories except national defense were reduced.' Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services. . "*
That's awful. Do you think the Congress passed Reagan's budget with cuts?

*Yes, as I stated, the tax increases were substantial though*

Right. So instead of taxes going down from 10 to 8, they only went down to 9.

Is that what caused unemployment to drop?

*it makes no difference what the tax increases were.  They were increases.* 

Right, and people still saw a bigger paycheck the next year.

*Watch that laughing, it is often a symptom of the condition known as congenital idiocy.*

In this case, it's cause by your idiocy.
*
It states he cut spending on non military areas, and spent more on military areas.* 

You need to reread your article. It said that was what he desired. You've posted no proof of what he did.

*The shock was, again, to the american public.* 

Yes, the jump in unemployment was shocking.
Still funny to see you claim it jumped because people had higher take home pay and because Reagan proposed, but never got, large spending cuts.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And I always love it when CON$ lie about what others post. I posted no such thing, YOU did and Reagan's tax cuts never followed that projected schedule.

Following the 1981 tax cuts, as the economy was mired in recession and the federal deficit was spiraling out of control, even groups such as the Business Roundtable lobbied Reagan to raise taxes. And he did: 
*The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982*. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. *Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes, your fertile imagination is noted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



When Obama raised taxes, why didn't he achieve the same GDP growth as Reagan?
Obama's should have been higher, because he's so much smarter than Reagan, so what happened?
Why did Obama have so much fail compared to so much Reagan success?


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. *An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983*.__[4]_
> 
> Thanks. *I always enjoy it when liberals post the refutations of their own claims*.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> _In 1988, __libertarian__ political writer __Sheldon Richman__ described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser __Bruce Bartlett__ wrote in __National Review__ that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."__[10]__ *However, this "increase" was achieved primarily through the cancellation of future tax cuts scheduled by ERTA the year before that had yet to take effect at the time of TEFRA's passage*.__[11]__ Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.__[11]_


And I love it when the CON$ post contradicting claims that end up proving the Libs correct!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Liberals love to forget that interest rates were 20% when Reagan began, thus causing a recession. When the  rates were dropped the economy boomed. The period was not remotely comparable to other periods in terms of critical monetary policy. And  that is not to mention that China did not exist then as a exporter and Japan had just begun to export cars here seriously.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So you still have 66% of the original tax cuts in place. And the problem was not the tax cuts - it was the panic. If you think 8 months is enough time to correct the problems created by Dumbocrats like Jimmy Carter, you're an epic fool. At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history. We went from the second worst economy ever to one of the best economies ever. It's not rocket science. It just requires one to accept reality over there ideology. Something liberals (like Ed) _refuse_ to do sadly.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When Obama raised taxes, why didn't he achieve the same GDP growth as Reagan?


Obama didn't raise taxes at first but continued the Bush tax cuts. GDP languished. Finally he let most of the Bush tax cuts expire and GDP grew.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Liberals love to forget that interest rates were 20% when Reagan began, thus causing a recession.


Liar!
Rates did not reach 20% until Reagan.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.


Unemployment was higher under Reagan, Interest rates were higher under Reagan and the Reagan Recession was the second longest in history and the Carter recession was one of the shortest in history.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.
> ...


Yeah....the Carter recession was one of the "shortest in history" because *Reagan* ended it with strong economic policy.


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Reagan benefitted from Carter's policies.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Reagan _immediately_ rid the U.S. of Carter's failed liberal policies. Nice try though.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the day, the Reagan economy (when taken into context with the Jimmy Carter disaster) is probably the single greatest economy in U.S. history.
> ...



But, we should not forget that Republicans economic accomplishments include three records, representing first, second, and third place:
1.  The great Republican Depression of 1929, NUMBER 1. Over 25% ue.
2.  The Great Reagan Depression of 1982, Number 2.  10.8% ue.
3.  The Great Republican Recession of 2008, number 3.  10% ue.
 Now, of course, though it was during their administrations and based on their policies, they do not ever take credit for their records.  Poor ignorant clowns just rely on Republican Talking Points.  That way, they do not need to try reason.

Relative to the Great Reagan Depression of 1982, they can never provide any kind of answer as to why Ronnie did not use Reaganomics after he created the most damaging recession on record, and their response was to use Keynesian policies - tax and use deficit spending.  The fact that Reagans admin nearly tripled the national debt and spent more than all presidents up till then combined did not bother them at all.  And how quickly they forgot those pledges to reduce the size of the us government after they had increased it by more than any admin before them.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Usually I don't bother responding to your posts.  They are just to stupid.  But here you outdid yourself.  That post was so wrong and so easy to prove it was wrong, it makes me laugh.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am shocked you do not know the reasons.  Let me help you, me poor ignorant con tool:
1.  Republicans  owned the congress and stopped every effort to fight the recession.  Voted against bills to fight recession every single time, with every republican congressman voting no.  And, they then refused to bring forward a single bill aimed at shortening the recession. 
2. They required the only bill that got through, with zero votes from their side, to be over 1/3 tax cuts, which, according to the cbo, had the least effect on the recession of any measures the bill had. 
3.  Obama came into office while we were seeing losses of over 500,000 jobs per month.  And he was left with the largest recession of any new president since the Great Republican Depression of 1929.   The recession now known as the Great Republican Recession.
Sorry to blunt your well refined conservative talking point.  Try thinking some time.


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


And the rich got richer and Black Monday.
Nice try, though.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. *An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983*.__[4]_
> ...



_Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.__[11]_[/QUOTE]

That sneaky Reagan even when he raised taxes, they went lower.


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That sneaky Reagan even when he raised taxes, they went lower.[/QUOTE]
Some people with advanced are REALLY lucky thanks to Reaganomics...They've been replaced by all those Business Visas we don't need thanks to automation.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Relative to the Great Reagan Depression of 1982, they can never provide any kind of answer as to why Ronnie did not use Reaganomics after he created the most damaging recession on record, and their response was to use Keynesian policies - tax and use deficit spending.  The fact that Reagans admin nearly tripled the national debt and spent more than all presidents up till then combined did not bother them at all.  And how quickly they forgot those pledges to reduce the size of the us government after they had increased it by more than any admin before them.



Hilarious. There was no "Great Reagan Depression". What there was (as usual) was Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats destroying the world economy. Reagan came in and turned it all around. This is the 1930's junior. People no longer believe lies if told enough. We have too much information at our fingertips and too many resources. All you're doing is destroying your own credibility and making yourself look like a partisan hack.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When Obama raised taxes, why didn't he achieve the same GDP growth as Reagan?
> ...



Obama raised taxes in his 4th year. Reagan cut in his 1st.

Your chart shows cuts work better than no cuts. Thanks!


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Yeah...."Black Monday". By Tuesday everything was fine. When FDR over saw _his_ "Black Monday" it lasted over a decade thanks to ignorant liberal socialism. And not only did he force people to live in near perpetual poverty, he also shredded the U.S. Constitution in the process. Yeah libtard policy!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



*they can never provide any kind of answer as to why Ronnie did not use Reaganomics after he created the most damaging recession on record
*
You never did explain how Reagan created the recession.

Was it by cutting the top rate from 70% to 50%?
Was it his military buildup? Can you provide any specifics?


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I am shocked you do not know the reasons.  Let me help you, me poor ignorant con tool[



I'm not the least bit shocked by your absurd and ignorant propaganda.




Rshermr said:


> 1.  Republicans  owned the congress and stopped every effort to fight the recession.  Voted against bills to fight recession every single time, with every republican congressman voting no.  And, they then refused to bring forward a single bill aimed at shortening the recession.



Barack Obama spent the first two years of his Administration with a Democrat House _and_ Senate (and a super-majority for a little bit, so Republican's couldn't even filibuster). He received 100% of the policies/bills that he asked for. He said the economy needed trillions in "stimulus" - he got it in three different rounds of stimulus spending. He said the economy needed Obamacare. He got it. He said the economy needed "finance reform" - he got the Dodd/Frank finance reform. He asked for the debt ceiling to be raised over and over and over - he got it each and every time. You literally could not point to one single piece of legislation that he wanted which he did not receive.



Rshermr said:


> 2. They required the only bill that got through, with zero votes from their side, to be over 1/3 tax cuts, which, according to the cbo, had the least effect on the recession of any measures the bill had.



If Republican's had ZERO votes on an unnamed bill (which proves you're either ignorant or too lazy to look it up), then how could the Republican's been in position to demand anything - including tax cuts? _Oops_...



Rshermr said:


> 3.  Obama came into office while we were seeing losses of over 500,000 jobs per month.  And he was left with the largest recession of any new president since the Great Republican Depression of 1929.   The recession now known as the Great Republican Recession.



As we've already established in many threads - the Jimmy Carter economy that Ronald Reagan took over was exponentially worse than the economy Barack Obama took over. He took over an economy with 7% unemployment and he rammed that up over 10% despite spending like an irresponsible, immature, drunk sailor.

In short Rshemr - you're a fool. You don't have any clue about reality. And you just got _destroyed_ with facts.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Relative to the Great Reagan Depression of 1982, they can never provide any kind of answer as to why Ronnie did not use Reaganomics after he created the most damaging recession on record.



That's because there is no explanation to something that never happened. It's like asking Dumbocrats to explain what caused the unicorn to go extinct... 

Jimmy Carter and libtard Dumbocrat policy did what it always does - crashed the world economy. Reagan came and employed conservative policy - and it did what it always does. Created an economic tidal wave of wealth and prosperity for all (well - anyone willing to work anyway).

No matter how many times you attempt to lie about this - it doesn't matter. History is well documented. Ronald Reagan was one of the most beloved presidents of all time because he took the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats and over night he restored the U.S. to the economic (and for that matter - military) super power that it had always been. But thanks for playing junior! Game over.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, but Reagan raised taxes in his 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 7th.  So what does that tell you???  Quick, run to the Conservative talking Points site.


Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Relative to the Great Reagan Depression of 1982, they can never provide any kind of answer as to why Ronnie did not use Reaganomics after he created the most damaging recession on record, and their response was to use Keynesian policies - tax and use deficit spending.  The fact that Reagans admin nearly tripled the national debt and spent more than all presidents up till then combined did not bother them at all.  And how quickly they forgot those pledges to reduce the size of the us government after they had increased it by more than any admin before them.
> ...



You should use that information at your fingertips instead of relying on bat shit crazy con web sites, and the conservative talking points site.  Too easy to see how you line up, me boy.  
So, the reason I am going to ignore you is obvious in your post.  It is not the 1930's, me boy.  Look, I know I am being hard on you, and I should not.  You are ill.  Mentally.  And I know it is congenital.  Not your fault, me boy.  JUST BAD LUCK.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*Republicans owned the congress and stopped every effort to fight the recession.*

The recession ended by June 2009. The Republicans didn't take the House until Jan 2011.
How could they stop Obama's "recession fight"?
*
And, they then refused to bring forward a single bill aimed at shortening the recession.
*
Bastards! Refusing to fight the recession that ended 18 months before they took over. LOL!

*They required the only bill that got through, with zero votes from their side, to be over 1/3 tax cuts, which, according to the cbo, had the least effect on the recession of any measures the bill had.*

Yeah, refundable tax credits are one of the weakest tax cuts you can give.

*Obama came into office while we were seeing losses of over 500,000 jobs per month.
*
And managed to hand us the weakest recovery in history.
Maybe he should have cut tax rates across the board, like Reagan did?


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



The Conservative vision that caused the Great Depression was the same Conservative vision that caused Black Monday, and no, everything WASN'T fine by Tuesday, as major firms converged, people were laid off and work hours were in excess of 100 per week.
Supply Side Economics has always been the Wet Dream of Republicans...Cheap Labor and No Benefits.
Under Reagan, thanks to technology, it accelerated, and manufacturing began it's long, torturous journey away from the US.
The Bi-Partisan Economy we have today did NOT start in a vacuum, it started with Reagan.


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course the Recession ENDED...There was no one left to fire.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*
Yes, but Reagan raised taxes in his 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 7th.
*
Yup, raised the top rate all the way from 70% to 28%.
*
So what does that tell you???* 

That Obama should have cut the top rate from 35% to 20%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
The Conservative vision that caused the Great Depression was the same Conservative vision that caused Black Monday,*

They had portfolio insurance and program trading in the 1920s?


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


It ended not only well before Reagan took office, but also before *St Ronnie* started the worst recession at the time since the Great Republican Depression, only to be outdone by the Great Bush Recession.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Reagan _immediately_ rid the U.S. of Carter's failed liberal policies.


And threw the country into at the time the greatest recession since the Great Republican Depression.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan _immediately_ rid the U.S. of Carter's failed liberal policies.
> ...



Poor bastard is a congenital idiot.  All he knows how to do is cut and paste from the conservative talking points web site.  But it is congenital.  So it is not really his fault.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> There was no "Great Reagan Depression".


Typical Right-wing revisionist history. Reagan's recession was at the time the worst recession since the Great Republican Depression, only to be outdone later by the Great Bush Recession.


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Hey dumb ass, the chart covers only 2 and 1/4 years, the numbers at the bottom are QUARTERS, not years!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Reagan came and employed *conservative policy - and it did what it always does*.


Took credit for other peoples' accomplishments!


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The boy thought that thats how years was spelled.  Not his fault.  He is a con tool.  I think it is congenital.


----------



## Indeependent (May 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



No, they over invested overseas.
Haven't you watched Milton Friedman's video on YouTube on the cause of The Great Depression?
He doesn't blame shifting money away from the US, he blames the Fed for taking too long to implement Quantitative Easing.
Freidman's dementia must have been setting in.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, the reason I am going to ignore you is obvious in your post.



It is obvious. Because I just humiliated you. I made it very clear to everyone that you have no idea what you're talking about. And you're smart enough to realize that I do. Hence the reason you don't want any part of this conversation. You're brighter than the normal stubborn libtard.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan _immediately_ rid the U.S. of Carter's failed liberal policies.
> ...


Yeah...keep telling yourself that the greatest economic tidal wave in U.S. history during the Reagan Administration was "a great depression". I can wait until 30 years from now how we'll have to listen to future generations of blind, devoted libtard minions spout about how Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats built the "epic" economy of 2008 & 2009


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > There was no "Great Reagan Depression".
> ...


Projection. It's what libtards do best. Everything that liberals are guilty of they accuse the other side of doing. The Dumbocrats have a long and ugly history of racism - and of course today we have to listen to them falsely accuse conservatives of being racist. The Dumbocrats have a long and ugly history of overseeing economies that collapsed (FDR and the Great Depression, Jimmy Carter and the Great Recession, Barack Obama - A.K.A. the Food Stamp President, etc.) and yet we have to listen to obedient little libtard minions pretend like the greatest economic turnaround in U.S. history was a "recession".

The entire Dumbocrat platform is - whatever we're guilty of doing - just claim the other side did and hope there are enough ignorant little libtard minions out there (such as EdTheCynic) who won't ask any questions or study history, but who will simply believe whatever we tell them. SMH.

You seem more worried and panicked than normal ETC. Is the thought of Donald Trump taking away all of your government gravy trains away worrying you? I doubt he'll do it ETC. You'll probably be able to keep mooching off of society.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Wow.  That was a lot of words, and even more letters, for you have pasted.  Congratulations.  Just keep at it.  Don't believe it when they say that congenital idiots can not perform.  You are proving them wrong.


----------



## P@triot (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Like I said earlier - your much brighter than the average libtard. Most of them let their pride get in the way. You're smart enough to see that the facts make you look foolish so you're avoiding debate at all costs. Well done little one. Well done. Someday you might be able to break out of being a brainwashed little minion and actually question the leaders that you follow so blindly right now.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Your post is entirely PROJECTION!


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wow....you've been so thoroughly defeated you can't even come up with an original thought. You're relegated to just repeating what I'm saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Truth is, should you be interested, that you could get all sorts of answers about when any recession ended. There is no absolute date.*

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Derp.

*Actually, of the tax cuts provided by the ARRA  better than most.* 

Nope. People tend to save a large portion of a temporary tax cut.

*I thought you said the economy had recovered by June of 2009.* 

The recession ended. And boy has the recovery sucked.
*
UNLIKE IN THE REGAN RECESSIONS WHEN DEMOCRATS DID NOT BLOCK ANY OF REAGAN'S ATTEMPTS.  AT ALL.  See the difference??*

Yes, I see your fantasies about Tip O'Neill are very powerful.

*You are on a very, very small island.  Most all people have figured out that supply side economics does not work.*

Compared to Obama's tax hikes and sub 3% GDP, supply side was fan-fucking-tastic!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*That is a very, very ignorant explanation of the reasons for the Great Republican Depression of 2008.*

Black Monday was October 19, 1987.

Derp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*Hey dumb ass, the chart covers only 2 and 1/4
*
Hey, dumbass, Reagan cut taxes in his first year, where is Obama's GDP growing as well as Reagan's?
*
Obama didn't raise taxes at first.....GDP languished.*

Yup, he should have cut taxes.
*
Finally he let most of the Bush tax cuts expire and GDP grew.
*
Nope, after he raised taxes, GDP still languished.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



No, they over invested overseas.

*Which has what to do with 1987 or the Great Depression?*

Haven't you watched Milton Friedman's video on YouTube on the cause of The Great Depression?

*Massive bank failures and the Fed tightened the money supply instead of easing.*


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Tell that to Milton...it's HIS video.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What do I need to tell Milton? How does that help whatever silly claim you're making?


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I quoted his video and you remarked on the sillieness of the quote.
Watch the video on YouTube.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



It's a long thread.
Which post did you quote Milton?


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> I quoted his video and you remarked on the sillieness of the quote. Watch the video on YouTube.



Your avatar pretty much eliminates any and all credibility you might have had. Why is Bill Gates an "a$$shole"? Because he created a product that millions needed and wanted? Because he was successful? Because he - gasp! - made _money_? Oh the horrors! In your sick socialist mind, what should people aspire to be? Unemployed? Homeless?


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Obama didn't raise taxes at first.....GDP languished.*
> 
> Yup, he should have cut taxes.
> ...


Obama DID cut taxes, TWICE, and you just admitted that GDP "languished."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*Obama DID cut taxes, TWICE,*

Tax rates are higher than when he took office.
Which taxes do you think he cut?

*and you just admitted that GDP "languished."
*
Weakest recovery ever!


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


What planet do you live on? Nobody knows how to quite ignore reality like you to Eddy boy.....

*Full List of Obama Tax Hikes*

*1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco:* On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

*2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax* (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats -- must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:


1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085


The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that six million American families will be liable for the tax, and as Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, 100 percent of Americans filing a tax return (140 million filers) will be forced to submit paperwork to the IRS showing they had “qualifying” health insurance for every month of the tax year. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337)_

*3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax* (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). _Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346_

_Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years_

*4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income *(Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013): *Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income* earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: _Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93_

*Capital Gains*

*Dividends*

*Other**

_2011-2012_

15%

15%

35%

_2013+ (current law)_

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%

_2013+ (Obama budget)_

23.8%

23.8%

43.4%


_*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens._

*5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans* (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956_

*6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax* (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


_Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93_

*7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax* (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans are no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959_

*8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike* (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959_

*9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”* (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (currently unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education_. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389_

*10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers* (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on total sales, even if the respective company does not earn a profit. Exempts items retailing for <$100. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986_

*11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI* (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995_

*12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services* (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Making matters worse: According to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, the Obama IRS didn’t bother to issue compliance guidelines until three quarterly filing deadlines had passed: “By the time [IRS] notices were issued, tanning excise tax returns had been due for three quarters." _Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399_

*13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D* (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994_

*14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike* (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004_

*15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals* (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971_

*16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies* (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980_

*17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers* (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993_

*18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives* (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000_

*19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2* ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. _Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957_

*20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike* (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. _Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105_

*21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”* (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. _Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113_

Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

The iPhone doesn't display the Post.
Go to YouTube and search for Milton Friedman Great Depression.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because republicans voted agains every single effort by the presidents economic team to pass bills to help the problem of unemployment and slow growth.  Because, me boy, they *LIKED *it.
So, todd, perhaps you can actually suggest what republicans did to help the situation.  Instead of just throwing rocks and posting conservative talking points.  You know, what they did to reverse the rush toward a new great republican depression in 2008 and early 2009 as we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  And the workers of this nation were suffering.  Did any republican congressmen care?
Did YOU?
What bills did republicans bring forward to help the recovery?  
Can you name them????????


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and he cut payroll taxes resulting, according to no less an authority than YOU, in GDP "languishing."


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > I quoted his video and you remarked on the sillieness of the quote. Watch the video on YouTube.
> ...


Because he started the trend of testifying before Congress that all Americans, including yourself don't have the skill-set required by Corporate America.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> The iPhone doesn't display the Post.
> Go to YouTube and search for Milton Friedman Great Depression.



What was your claim about the video?
How did I mock what Friedman said?

If you find your post, let me know.
If I had to guess, you said something inaccurate and I mocked you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
> Too many.



Zero is too many?

Ignorance, thy name is democrat.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nice post of a conservative and completely partial source's talking points.  Do you ever use impartial sources?  Like thinking people do?  Of course not.  Because, obviously, you are a con tool.  Which means you only post con talking points.  
I am sure it is congenital, me boy.  not your fault.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Now _that_ is _hilarious_. You advocate that government take over the private sector and then you act appalled when government brings the private sector in to testify about something they have no business being involved in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yeah, temporary tax cuts don't stimulate very well, as I've said before.
For tax cuts to work, people have to think they're permanent.

Yep, weakest recovery ever. At least he stopped the rise of the oceans.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
> ...


If you really want to see ignorance, try a mirror.


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > The iPhone doesn't display the Post.
> ...


I pointed out a video from Milton Friedman that didn't mesh with your viewpoint and you mocked it; not much of an aberration in your behavior.
Now stop bullshitting and watch the video for yourself.


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


WTF?
Are you capable of any intelligent thought?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Obama DID cut taxes, TWICE, and you just admitted that GDP "languished."



Oh look everyone, edtheliar is lying. 

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts twice. Never did he cut taxes.


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


You're such a moron...
CEOs and Directors ask Congress for time to plead their case.


----------



## P@triot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And if people like you hadn't stocked Congress with libtard Dumbocrats who ignore the Constitution for their own power and wealth, Congress would've told those "CEO's and Directors" to go fuck themselves.

Don't get mad at me because I'm making you realize that you and you're ideology are the cause of the problem. But it is nice to seeing you _slowly_ waking up. You're still groggy and your eyes are mostly closed but it looks like there may be _some_ hope.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you really want to see ignorance, try a mirror.



And hold it facing you?

So, you can point to Chicago school policies causing a Wall Street "crash" then?

Of course not, you are a political hack, you have no grasp of economic principles. Friedman never proposed Commoditized Debt Obligations, that was fucking bill Clinton. Friedman never suggested heavy use of ARM's for buyers with a 450 FICO and no describable source of income; that was Carter. No advocate of Chicago school economics suggested credit default swaps on of MBS speculation?

You are a hack seeking to promote your party. Let's not pretend you actually know what the fuck you are yammering about.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And yet the Right claim the TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts worked perfectly!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Obama DID cut taxes, TWICE, and you just admitted that GDP "languished."
> ...


Funny how every time you call me a liar, YOU follow it with a lie.
The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and Obama cut payroll taxes in addition to extending the Bush tax cuts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> And yet the Right claim the TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts worked perfectly!!!!



You grasp the distinction between cuts and one time Stimulus rebates, right?


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Right claim the TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts worked perfectly!!!!
> ...


Do you mean like Bush's $300 and $600 tax rebates the Right has always called tax cuts?
Like Bush's temporary tax cuts, Obama's included BOTH tax cuts and tax rebates.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Funny how every time you call me a liar, YOU follow it with a lie.
> The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and Obama cut payroll taxes in addition to extending the Bush tax cuts.



No ed, it sure wasn't. The Porkulus included tax REBATES. These are vastly different than tax cuts, No one had their rate lowered, they we simply given a one-time rebate.

{
Tax rebates created by the law were paid to individual U.S. taxpayers during 2008. Most taxpayers below the income limit received a rebate of at least $300 per person ($600 for married couples filing jointly). Eligible taxpayers received, along with their individual payment, $300 per dependent child under the age of 17. The payment was equal to the payer's net income tax liability, but could not exceed $600 (for a single person) or $1200 (married couple filing jointly).[3] Net liability can be found in these locations:

Form 1040: line 57 plus line 52
Form 1040A: line 35 plus line 32
Form 1040EZ: line 10

Those with no net tax liability were still eligible to receive a rebate, provided they met minimum qualifying income of $3,000 per year.[4] Rebates were phased out for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes greater than $75,000 ($150,000 for couples filing jointly) in 2007. For taxpayers with incomes greater than $75,000, rebates were reduced at a rate of 5% of the income above this limit. Individuals who were claimed as dependents by another taxpayer were not eligible for the rebates.[3]}

Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*I pointed out a video from Milton Friedman that didn't mesh with your viewpoint and you mocked it
*
Sounds like you are confused. If you find your post, let me know.
I'll point out your confusion again.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It needed congressional help.  You see, no president can pass bills on his own.  As you are pretending to not understand.  And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.  Because, like you, they did not want to help, and they did not care about the middle class.  Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.  EVERY ONE.  And in every case, every single republican congressman voted against the bills.

*and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Not me. Moronic temporary tax cuts are moronic, no matter who does them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Do you mean like Bush's $300 and $600 tax rebates the Right has always called tax cuts?
> Like Bush's temporary tax cuts, Obama's included BOTH tax cuts and tax rebates.



So the Bush cuts were a one time thing?

Or did they continue for 11 years?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*And republicans BLOCKED every bill meant to help, and passed none of their own.
*
Stopping his new spending plans was good.
*
Every single republican congressman voted against every bill brought forward to help the economy.*

Obama spending plans wouldn't help the economy.

*and what bills did republicans bring forward to help lower unemployment and help with the slow recovery?*

You should look on Reid's desk.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The *Porkulus* included tax REBATES. These are vastly different than tax cuts, No one had their rate lowered, they we simply given a one-time rebate.


You can always tell a mindless DittoTard.

In addition to the rebates, the STIMULUS Bill included tax cuts for BUSINESS as well as individuals. Much of the $275 billion in tax cuts would go to middle-income families in the form of $1,000 tax cuts ($500 for individuals). An array of business and other tax cuts would make up the remainder.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean like Bush's $300 and $600 tax rebates the Right has always called tax cuts?
> ...


Notice how the Right lies, I said the Bush tax cuts were "TEMPORARY" which they were, they eventually expired after being renewed again TEMPORARILY. So the worthless lying scum Right change my words to "a one time thing."


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The *Porkulus* included tax REBATES. These are vastly different than tax cuts, No one had their rate lowered, they we simply given a one-time rebate.
> ...



Have you noticed that conservatives only have blame, always for dems.  They never have solutions.  Just blame.  And that the blame is in the form of conservative talking points.  And that they NEVER take responsibility.  Ever.  The Great Republican Recession, which was saved from turning into a depression, was never the fault of repubs in their minds.  Sad.  Proves they are fully capable of believing what they want to believe, and putty in the hands of the conservative bosses.
I am still looking for the bills put forward by republicans to help anything except the wealthy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes, but most con tools are simply congenital liars.  They really can not help themselves. 
And they do not care whether they lie or not. as long as what they say is what they want to believe.  Normal people rebel at being told what to believe.  Cons revel in it.  It is what they long for.  Poor ignorant clowns.
*5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid*
*5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?

Repealing Obamacare would help employment.
Rolling back some of Obama's idiotic regulations would help employment.
Cutting the corporate tax rate to 20% would help employment.

Would Obama sign anything like that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



*The Great Republican Recession, which was saved from turning into a depression*

What did Obama due to "stop the depression" between January 20, 2009 and June 2009, when the recession ended?

It must have been something huge......because we were so close to another Great Depression.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> You can always tell a mindless DittoTard.
> 
> In addition to the rebates, the STIMULUS Bill included tax cuts for BUSINESS as well as individuals. Much of the $275 billion in tax cuts would go to middle-income families in the form of $1,000 tax cuts ($500 for individuals). An array of business and other tax cuts would make up the remainder.



In "addition," huh, edtheliar?

{
*Tax incentives for individuals*
Total: $237 billion


$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[25]
$70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one-year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[25]
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
$14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
$6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between January 1, 2009, and December 1, 2009, and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[38]
$4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers – for families with at least three children.
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
*Tax incentives for companies*
Total: $51 billion


$15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
$13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014).
$11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.
$7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years.
$5 billion: Bonus depreciation, which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.}



Oops, looks like you're lying again.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> [
> 
> Notice how the Right lies, I said the Bush tax cuts were "TEMPORARY" which they were, they eventually expired after being renewed again TEMPORARILY. So the worthless lying scum Right change my words to "a one time thing."



Life is temporary, edtheliar. The Bush tax cuts were not a one time event.

Even you can grasp the distinction.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Have you noticed that conservatives only have blame, always for dems.  They never have solutions.  Just blame.  And that the blame is in the form of conservative talking points.  And that they NEVER take responsibility.  Ever.  The Great Republican Recession, which was saved from turning into a depression, was never the fault of repubs in their minds.  Sad.  Proves they are fully capable of believing what they want to believe, and putty in the hands of the conservative bosses.
> I am still looking for the bills put forward by republicans to help anything except the wealthy.



Yes, you are a hack. But you're stupid. You force reality into your partisan world view.

Find anything positive I have written about Dubya.

I'll wait.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
> How much more deficit spending does he need to stimulate the economy?


The GOP National Debt was 12 trillion at the end of the last Bush fiscal year. Then you add the 2 trillion in interest on the GOP National Debt, and then you add the continuing expenses of Bush's wars including the continuing medical expenses, and Bush's unfunded increase in SS and Medicare, and all but about 3 trillion of the current GOP National Debt belongs to GOP presidents.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Notice that when the worthless lying scum Right get caught lying they just continue to lie some more.
Thank you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The debt is $8.6 trillion higher than the day he took office.
> ...



So that's why we have the weakest recovery ever, the smartest president ever had Republican predecessors.

I guess if the debt was $12 trillion higher than the day he took office, everything would be groovy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Notice that when the worthless lying scum Right get caught lying they just continue to lie some more.
> Thank you.



The only one lying is you, edtheliar.

Obama did not cut taxes. We had a rebate as part of Porkulus, nothing more.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that when the worthless lying scum Right get caught lying they just continue to lie some more.
> ...


Liar!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> [
> 
> Liar!





You may be a hate filled partisan, but you're dumb as a post.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Said the conservative tool who is a congenital idiot.  And never posts an actual impartial argument.  Dipshit.  Truth, me boy, is always truth.  And what Ed posted is unvarnished TRUTH.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You can always tell a mindless DittoTard.
> ...



Great.  Some accomplishment for a congenital idiot.  Being able to cut and paste.  Now, next, dipshit, include a link so we can see the context.  Which I assume you do not want anyone to see. Dipshit.
By the way, my 7 year old grandson can easily do what you just did.  Ass hole.  Quit wasting my time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Said the conservative tool who is a congenital idiot.  And never posts an actual impartial argument.  Dipshit.  Truth, me boy, is always truth.  And what Ed posted is unvarnished TRUTH.



One difference between me and you Soros drones is that I cite my claims. You think you are privy to absolute truth because your masters at ThinkProgress told you something, 

You are an ignorant hack me boyo, you don't even understand Keynesian theory, you've never read " _General Theory_ of Employment, Interest and Money" (nor has edtheliar) and you think that your mindless adherence to the party somehow makes up for your abysmal lack of knowledge. The prerequisite to criticizing Freidman is a foundational grasp of Lord Keynes. Lacking this as you do, any educated person will recognize you for what you are, an ignorant hack.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yup.  Normal. They lie to cover their lies.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Great.  Some accomplishment for a congenital idiot.  Being able to cut and paste.  Now, next, dipshit, include a link so we can see the context.  Which I assume you do not want anyone to see. Dipshit.
> By the way, my 7 year old grandson can easily do what you just did.  Ass hole.  Quit wasting my time.



Poor little Bolshevik, unhappy that I proved your butt buddy wrong.

edtheliar is doing what he always does, stating what the party wants and then attempting to mold reality to fit party goals.

Facts ALWAYS defeat edtheliar.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Said the conservative tool who is a congenital idiot.  And never posts an actual impartial argument.  Dipshit.  Truth, me boy, is always truth.  And what Ed posted is unvarnished TRUTH.
> ...


That would be your opinion, me poor ignorant con tool.  I did indeed read it.  I understand keynesian theory, but do not buy the entire economic theory chapter and verse.  There have been plenty of economic modifications and new theories since Keynes.  And, unlike con tools who like to be told what to believe, I am like most thinking people.  And consider Keynes a good early model but with a number of modifications.
Never read anything about soros, except in drivel posted by cons like you.  Jesus, he is not 10% of the problem with money in politics.  The vast majority of the money in politics is from conservative tools, or actually their bosses, who try to push how we who do not buy Top Down, or Supply Side, or Reaganomics are all keynesians.  Problem is, the conservative mind does not understand that there are nuances to every theory of economics, a large number of economic theories, and parts of most make sense.   But with Friedman, his theory is based on the socio-economic system he purports to agree with.  In total.  Which is Libertarianism.  And that, me boy, makes him a paid hack before he says anything.  I would start to take him seriously if he could magically show a Libertarian country that has been successful ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IN THE PAST 250 YEARS.   Barring that, those who believe Supply Side Economics are proven hacks, paid by the wealthy to make them more wealthy.
And relative to my understanding of economics, I never, ever brag.  But you, me boy, have no room to criticize.  You know zero.  Just how to take orders and believe what you are told.  I have lived in and around libertarians for over 50 years, and every single solitary one was ignorant as a post.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Great.  Some accomplishment for a congenital idiot.  Being able to cut and paste.  Now, next, dipshit, include a link so we can see the context.  Which I assume you do not want anyone to see. Dipshit.
> ...


where are your facts, dipshit.  As soon as you can provide an impartial source (look it up, tool) I would consider your "facts".  But as a libertarian, I will wait for you to tell me where the successful libertarian country is that validates the doctrine.  Which  you know you can not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That would be your opinion, me poor ignorant con tool.  I did indeed read it.  I understand keynesian theory, but do not buy the entire economic theory chapter and verse.  There have been plenty of economic modifications and new theories since Keynes.  And, unlike con tools who like to be told what to believe, I am like most thinking people.  And consider Keynes a good early model but with a number of modifications.
> Never read anything about soros, except in drivel posted by cons like you.  Jesus, he is not 10% of the problem with money in politics.  The vast majority is conservative tools, or actually their bosses.  try to push how we who do not buy Top Down, or Supply Side, or Reaganomics are all keynesians.  Problem is, the conservative mind does not understand that there are nuances to every theory of economics, a large number of economic theories, and parts of most that make since.  But it is not at all hard to criticize is a grasp of a number of economic theories, and the real world.  But with Friedman, his theory is based on the socio-economic system he purports to agree with.  In total.  Which is Libertarianism.  And that, me boy, makes him a paid hack before he says anything.  I would start to take him seriously if he could magically show a Libertarian country that has been successful ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IN THE PAST 250 YEARS.   Barring that, those who believe Supply Side Economics are proven hacks, paid by the wealthy to make them more wealthy.
> And relative to my understanding of economics, I never, ever brag.  But you, me boy, have no room to criticize.  You know zero.  Just how to take orders and believe what you are told.  I have lived in and around libertarians for over 50 years, and every single solitary one was ignorant as a post.
> 
> As far as




Your post makes one thing perfectly clear, you have no grasp of economics at all.

As for Libertarian, did you know that Noam Chomsky regards himself as a LIBERTARIAN Marxist? You don't even grasp the distinction between political and economic systems.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Think about what  you just said, me boy.  After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history, he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes and *TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT*.  (bold and red to try to get you to understand). And the economy responded as any thinking person would have thought.   
So, yes indeed, you might try to listen to economists and stop posting conservative dogma.  It is SO boring, and largely ignorant.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Have you noticed that conservatives only have blame, always for dems.  They never have solutions.  Just blame.  And that the blame is in the form of conservative talking points.  And that they NEVER take responsibility.  Ever.  The Great Republican Recession, which was saved from turning into a depression, was never the fault of repubs in their minds.  Sad.  Proves they are fully capable of believing what they want to believe, and putty in the hands of the conservative bosses.
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That would be your opinion, me poor ignorant con tool.  I did indeed read it.  I understand keynesian theory, but do not buy the entire economic theory chapter and verse.  There have been plenty of economic modifications and new theories since Keynes.  And, unlike con tools who like to be told what to believe, I am like most thinking people.  And consider Keynes a good early model but with a number of modifications.
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Happens every single time we have a recession.*

Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?

*And they indicate we needed more STIMULATIVE spending.* 

Sure, $10 or $12 trillion in new debt would fix us right up! Derp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*After the economy loved Reagans economic measures to the point that the UE went to the second highest in US history
*
You never showed the spending cuts you're blaming for the jump in unemployment.

I guess your claims are dead on arrival.
*
he spent the next 6.5 years increasing taxes*

Yup, raised the top rate from 70% all the way up to 28%.

and *TRIPLING THE NATIONAL DEBT*. 

Yup, Reagan added $1.8 trillion, won the Cold War and gave us massive growth in jobs and GDP.

Obama added $8.6 trillion, so far, made us weaker around the world and gave us the weakest economic recovery in history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Do liberals ever say what their most significant disagreement with Friedman is?


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Reagan recession was caused by monetary policy which featured 20%
interest rates. Recovery was caused when rates were cut drastically. Its 100% ignorant to pretend monetary policy did not matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Any other recessions where the debt jumped $8.6 trillion?

*In real terms, yes. Reagans.  *

Nope. Obama's $8.6 trillion is equivalent to $4.25 trillion in 1988.

*It certainly did for Ronalds Great Recession of 1982.*

Reagan added much less to the debt and achieved much better GDP and job growth.
If only Obama had cut taxes, instead of raising them, we wouldn't be talking about this
weakest recovery ever.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
You know better, me boy. He lowered income tax rates at the highest rates.*

He cut all the rates.

*But he also raised taxes in other areas 10 or 11 times.*

By all means, explain further.

*Yup, Reagan added $1.8 (in 1982 dollars) trillion,*

I know, less than half of Obama's increase, in real terms.

You never showed the Reagan spending cuts that you blame for his increase in unemployment.

Why is that?


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.  Kind of how you look at your budget, say for a car.  How long do you have to work to pay for a car in one year as opposed to another year.
So, how have presidents done.  Obama is not yet don, but here are the numbers through 2014:

*Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President*

*Discussion:* Republican presidents after Eisenhower have increased the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product by a total of 60%. Democratic presidents have reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP by a total of 9%.

President Obama is the only Democratic President during whose time in office the debt has risen relative to GDP. The data extends to the end of FY2014 (September 2014). President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high and the deficit is relatively low. 2/5ths of the increase during President Obama's presidency occurred during the first year while the country was still in the midst of the Great Recession.

I*n terms of the change in the debt to GDP ratio per year, each Republican has performed worse than the previous Republican president. George H.W. Bush increased the debt as a percentage of GDP by almost 14%, which would have put him just barely behind his son had that continued for a second term.*
*Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by President*






Reagan tripled the national debt.  So far, no one else has.  But, me boy, it makes no real difference.  Reagan had no recession, except the one he created,  Obama inherited the Great Republican  Recession of 2008.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*There is only one way to look at debt, and that is as a percentage of GDP.*

Okay.







Q1 1981, about 30.8% of GDP. Q1 1989, about 49.6%.
Q1 2009, about 77.4% of GDP. Q1 2016, about 105.7%.

So it increased by less than 19% of GDP under Reagan.
With a year to go, it increased by more than 28% of GDP under Obama.
Thanks for pointing out another way Obama failed.



Graph: Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*He made them higher. Look them up.*

He made taxes on what go up? Specifics?

*And more importantly, not as a percent of GDP.* 

Reagan,  less than 19% of GDP, Obama, more than 28% of GDP.

You're right, that is more important.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
First, dipshit, you are looking at total debt. So, for obama, you include in your graph the debt for every president up to Obama, plus Obama. Rather dishonest.*

Hey, moron, if you subtract the debt as % of GDP in Q1 2009 from the current number, you'd see the % of GDP Obama added. Durr.

You're rather moronic.

*President Obama's bar will almost certainly drop by the end of his presidency, as GDP growth is relatively high 




*

Wow, 0.5% is relatively high? Derp.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



what a surprise that a socialist president produces a very slow economy!

Here's how Bill Clinton put it:

 “The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history,"*

And after the 1982 "tax increase" 1983 tax rates were lower than 1982 tax rates.

*A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes*

Yeah, that was awful! The payroll taxes went up from 5.4% to 5.7%, a year earlier, 1984 instead of 1985.
And they went up to 6.06% in 1988 and then to 6.2% in 1990, as scheduled before Reagan.

Social Security History


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.



Thanks.

Where was I disagreeing with this?


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*You cut it off for 2015 only.*

Q1 2016.
*
They were projecting from late 2013.  I am sorry you are unable to see that.* 

I guess 2013 growth is more important than last quarter? LOL!






Here's from Q1 2013.

*Does it hurt to be that dumb?*

Your stupidity must be very painful.


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Did raising revenue requite higher federal tax rates??* 

_Taxpayers still receive $375 billion in tax cuts in the 3 years following TEFRA.

The Biggest Tax Increase in History_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Your stupidity does cause me pain, but I'll get over it.

Did you ever show that Reagan cut spending and that caused unemployment to top 10%?
Or have you given up?


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Milton Friedman pontificating away on the cause of The Great Depression.
> ...


A failed economy = excessive off-shore investment coupled with no government intervention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You think I said that in some post here?


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.


----------



## Indeependent (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.


----------



## P@triot (May 26, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Nice straw man. Freidman made no such case. You have no leg to stand on because what you advocate for is illegal. This is as stupid as a bank robber trying to make a case for why we need armed-robbery.


----------



## Indeependent (May 26, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Turn off your selective hearing and watch the video again.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Name a job bill, me boy.  Because he did not.  You are lying again.  And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here is the thing.  This is not your fathers republican party.  We may think we elect congress to work for us, but in fact. they work for themselves.  And the folks that pay them.  The wealthy.  And no one else.

"If Republicans take the House as anticipated on election night, voters can expect to hear the customary talk about coming together with Democrats for the good of the country.

President Barack Obama inevitably will extend a hand across the aisle as well'

But that’s Tuesday. Right now, the tone is a lot different —* with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs."*
Read more: The GOP's no-compromise pledge

On the eve of Obama's inauguration in January of 2008, before he even took office, a meeting of republican political power brokers met and set an agenda in place to block Obama completely on all  "major" legislation.  And that includes all efforts to help the economy.  Any Obama, or Democratic Party legislation was planned to be OBSTRUCTED.  Every single bill.
In fact, in every single case, on health care and on stimulus for the economy, republican congressmen did not need to consider the legislation.  They were pledged, before Obama even took office, to vote no.  And, in fact, they did.  And, by doing so, there was NO chance any piece of legislation could go forward from the time Kennedy died, and there was. 
So, the founding fathers idea of a congress that worked for the populace has been destroyed by REPUBLICAN leadership.  Meanwhile, they planned going forward to criticize the president for not passing legislation.
"WASHINGTON — Before the health care fight, before the economicstimulus package, before President Obama even took office, SenatorMitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation
In the process, Mr. McConnell, 68, a Kentuckian more at home plotting tactics in the cloakroom than writing legislation in a committee room or exhorting crowds on the campaign trail, has come to embody a kind of oppositional politics that critics say has left voters cynical about Washington, the Senate all but dysfunctional and the Republican Party without a positive agenda or message.
But in the short run at least, his approach has worked. For more than a year, he pleaded and cajoled to keep his caucus in line. He deployed poll data. He warned against the lure of the short-term attention to be gained by going bipartisan, and linked Republican gains in November to showing voters they could hold the line against big government.
On the major issues — not just health care, but financial regulation and the economic stimulus package, among others — *Mr. McConnell has held Republican defections to somewhere between minimal and nonexistent, allowing him to slow the Democratic agenda if not defeat aspects of it. *He has helped energize the Republican base, expose divisions among Democrats and turn the health care fight into a test of the Democrats’ ability to govern.
“It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

Mr. McConnell said the unity was essential in dealing with Democrats on “things like the budget, national security and then ultimately, obviously, health care.”
Still, he said, his party had offered Democrats a chance for a deal on health care but blamed them as being inflexible. Democrats and the White House heavily courted Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who voted for an early version of the bill but later broke with Democrats. Democratic leaders, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said they did not think Republicans were ever serious about trying to strike a deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, me boy, there you go.  This republican meeting, and the foundation of the "Party of NO" was formally constructed in January of 2008.  And people have suffered, day after day, week after week, as republicans blocked any legislation to get the unemployment rate under control.  Which, any way you look at it, is at least anti-american. 

And, explains why you can find NO republican jobs legislation bills.  None, me boy. 
Isn't that odd???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman*

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

*Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
*
I've never done that.

*Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.*

At what time in your video does he do that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*On the eve of Obama's inauguration in January of 2008, before he even took office, a meeting of republican political power brokers met and set an agenda in place to block Obama completely on all "major" legislation. And that includes all efforts to help the economy. Any Obama, or Democratic Party legislation was planned to be OBSTRUCTED. Every single bill.
*
And a good thing too. Otherwise we'd be talking about $12 trillion in Obama debt, instead of only $8.6 trillion.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?


Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water. Just like the GOP House's Zika bill is let your drinking water be polluted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?
> ...



*Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water.
*
Link?


----------



## Indeependent (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you DIDN'T watch the video because someone as intelligent as you would have caught what he said.
OR you're such an ideologue that you can't absorb what he said.
Later when I'm not so tired I'll point out the time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.


----------



## Indeependent (May 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


We all know full well that the only method Republican Economic Stimulus = NO RULES.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> We all know full well that the only method Republican Economic Stimulus = NO RULES.


Republican Economic Stimulus = capitalism. And capitalism has plenty of rules:

1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.

2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example,  he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > We all know full well that the only method Republican Economic Stimulus = NO RULES.
> ...




*1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.
*
But does that relieve you from being responsible in your product or service?

*2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example,  he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.
*
Sure you do, but with the myriad of shell corporations you'd better have a lot of time (years) and money (millions).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> But does that relieve you from being responsible in your product or service?



what does being responsible in your product mean in good English ?????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Sure you do, but with the myriad of shell corporations you'd better have a lot of time (years) and money (millions).



so?? everyone is in favor of laws to make justice easier and easier


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I've seen the video. At what point did he blame the 1929 Crash on lack of bailouts?


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*H.R.1203. 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.*

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Ok, so you admit* ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.

*Ah.  So you are an economist?*

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.

*So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right*

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.

*Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes.  Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof*

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?

*You seem very familiar with gay pirates.*

Just you.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You must understand that Edward is the board troll.  He is, essentially, a conservative congenital idiot.  Not worth taking note of.  I just ignore him.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*H.R.1203. 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.*

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

As a matter of fact, it is one of the republicans bills that your boy called a jobs bill.  But then, as you and I have proven, there was no actual GOP jobs bill.  Because they did not care about people being out of work, and in miserable conditions.  They just wanted the economy to fail, if at all possible.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > But does that relieve you from being responsible in your product or service?
> ...



*what does being responsible in your product mean in good English ?????????
*
Let me put it in terms you can understand.

*You don't screw someone over to make a buck. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*As a matter of fact, it is one of the republicans bills that your boy called a jobs bill.*

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Were you lying or stupid when you made that claim?


----------



## OnePercenter (May 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you do, but with the myriad of shell corporations you'd better have a lot of time (years) and money (millions).
> ...



*so?? everyone is in favor of laws to make justice easier and easier
*
So? You believe hiding behind laws is responsible?


----------



## OnePercenter (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



*You must understand that Edward is the board troll.  He is, essentially, a conservative congenital idiot.  Not worth taking note of.  I just ignore him.
*
I know, I've been dealing with him for years. He's the recurring fungal infection of the USMB.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You only believe that because you are a con tool, and because you are unable to see fhow much obama was responsible for.  It must suck to be a con tool.  You never get to reason, work with truth.  You never have to accept responsibility for Anything.  You never need to actually think.  But I suppose it is fine, if you have no integrity.  If you do not mind lying.  And if you like to be told what to believe.  You are, me boy, a sad waste.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Yup.  We are indeed talking about the same being


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


 
I hate to agree with you, but Ed is an idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> *You don't screw someone over to make a buck. *



its very hard to do that under capitalism since everyone is free not to get screwed. Under libsocialism its very easy to get screwed over since you  are not free to object, you must submit. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

OnePercenter said:


> , * a conservative congenital idiot. *.



Why not say what is idiotic about conservatism or libertarianism?


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



yes would love to hear a liberals objections to Friedman's libertarian ideas. I wonder why they run from explaining his mistakes?


----------



## Indeependent (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...
> 
> 2:00-2:30
> 
> ...



1) its drivel, not dribble
2) I assume you, as a typical liberal,  lack ability to say why you disagree with Milton?


----------



## edthecynic (May 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
2:00-2:30
*
He wasn't talking about the Crash or bailouts here.
*
5:12-5:30
*
Here either.
*
5:38-5:54
*
Or here.

Do you know what the money supply is or how the Fed can influence it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


*
Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.*

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Ah. So you are an economist?
*
As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.

*Example?
*

Derp!

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.

*And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.*

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.

*Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work?*

Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
*
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy.  About 40% of the stimulus.
*
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
*
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,
*
Which areas do you think he cut? By how much? Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget?


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Ah. So you are an economist?
*
As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.  
So, you are a con tool.  We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7.  That is what you do.  Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist.  And you have no economists working for you.  And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.  
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.  

*Example?*

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit.  You have indigestion.  Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points.  What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe. 
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it.  Assuming that it worked.
But you can not.  You only post con talking points.

*And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.*

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool.  The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.  Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that.  Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe.  Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred.  Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%.  And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs.  Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.  

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%.  At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly.  And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.  
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING.  And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools.  Dipshit.  Ass hole.  Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points.  Asshole.

*Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor*
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?  
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked.  Which is obvious to all but con tools.
*
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy.  About 40% of the stimulus.*
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.  Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession.  Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried *permanent tax cuts,* had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history.  In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest.  He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR.  Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt.  And ended his recession quickly.  Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.
*
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,
*
Which areas do you think he cut?  I have told you.  Look it up, if you do not believe it.   By how much? It varies, me boy.  As any person capable of thinking would know.  Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget?  They were not supposed.  There were no supposed cuts.  Except in your imagination.


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


There are no jobs bills.  Just bills that make the wealthy happy.  Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.  
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it.  Dipshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.* 

He's economically illiterate.

*from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.* 

And huge tax hikes in 1932.

*Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,*

And the economy boomed. Weird.

*and again in 1929.* 

Nope, 1925.

*No, but it allows SPENDING
*
Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.

*Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.*

Yes. Without helping economic growth.

*Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.*

Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

*consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts*

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.

*In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest*

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.* 

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!


----------



## Indeependent (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I had no doubt in my mind that no matter the context your ego would not process his hypocrisy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Do you feel that preventing the collapse of the money supply is a bailout?

What is the duty of a lender of last resort?


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## boedicca (May 27, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101




But but but FEEEELLLLZZZZZZ!!!!!!!11!!!!1!1!!!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are such a con tool.  Let me educate you again, me poor ignorant con tool:

1. Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs.  Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.
2  The pipeline can not be built until all states provide the ok to build it through their state.  So, it would not have started for several years.
3.  The purpose of the bill was not to increase jobs.  We had been loosing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per *MONTH, * and at best we would have seen under 2,000 for a year during the short time the pipeline was being built.
4.  The pipeline bill was a wet kiss to the energy industry, and was not ever intended to be a jobs bill.
5. Claiming this as a jobs bill *makes you look like the partisan hack that you are, and does not pass the giggle test.  *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> .  But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982.  And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.



Fed funds rate was 20% in 1981. It was monetary recession that had nothing to do with Reagan. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest
*
Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

*You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.*

Sure he did.
That's why rates were lower in 1983 than in 1982. Because he raised taxes.

That's why rates were lower in 1984 than in 1983. Because he raised taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Permanent jobs after the pipeline is built are estimated at between 35 and 50 jobs. Which would have NO impact on the ue rate.*

I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?


----------



## P@triot (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm more interested in the tens of thousands of jobs created during construction.
> Why does Obama hate pipeline construction workers?



Because he and all of his pals are heavily invested in the "green" energy joke and like a typical marxist, he wants to make billions for himself.


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You are an idiot.  Are you of the opinion that the only tax is Federal Income Taxes?
Did I say he raised Federal income Taxes?  
Here.  I know that it is hard for con tools like you, but see if you can actually reason:
"the Gipper really did cut taxes — with the *help of Congress* — in his first year as president."


The "largest tax cut in history" that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
Got it, me boy.  If you check,when he came in, the ue rate was about 7.4%.  And Reagan  had a major tax cut.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest
*
Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

*You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward.*

Sure he did.
That's why rates were lower in 1983 than in 1982. Because he raised taxes.

That's why rates were lower in 1984 than in 1983. Because he raised taxes.
OOOOPS  My mistake. I did not realize you could be that stupid. I over estimated you.
Apparently you think that the only tax is INCOME tax.  That is NOT what I said, me poor ignorant con tool.  As I said before, he raised several taxes.  I even gave you examples.  And there are many federal taxes that are not INCOME TAXES.
So, me boy, let me try to educate you AGAIN:
"the Gipper really did cut taxes — with the help of Congress — in his first year as president.
The "largest tax cut in history" that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented* 1.91 percent of the country’s gross domestic product."
*
So, big tax cut, in 1981, as I have said.  In the nature of almost 2% of GDP.  Got that, me boy?  And that was an decrease in income tax. Federal, of course.  Following me so far????? 
"Reagan *raised taxes*, too. T*wo laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic.*

These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Still, Baker said, "the loopholes were big ones."
*Reagan’s tax increases*
*1982: *The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) i*ncreased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.*

The 1982 tax increase was "*probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history,*" said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)
This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.
Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for _Tax Notes _in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the *1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.*

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.
*1983: *A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.
*1984:* The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.
Reagan a*lso signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988* (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions).
Stephen Colbert brings up Ronald Reagan's tax-raising record in Ted Cruz interview

So, reagan raised taxes multiple times, as I have told you.  From early 1982 on.  And the result was that reagan felt justified in spending like a drunken sailor.  As opposed to other presidents, Reagan's increase in the national debt was mostly spending, with a smaller portion on lost tax revenue.


----------



## Rshermr (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.  that is another of your con talking points.  Dipshit.
We lost millions of jobs.  We needed to recover millions of jobs.  And we did, with no help at all from republicans.  And you, who could care less about jobs, are trying to say that the thousand or so temporary jobs would have made a difference.  Typical conservative logic.  You loose millions of jobs, and do nothing to help except require a pipeline that many states do not yet agree to, and would only provied a thousand or so TEMPORARY jobs to offset the millions of jobs lost because of republican policies that created the Great Republican Recession.  Yeah.  That would seem fair to a con tool like you.  Dipshit.
Why do republican congressmen hate the millions of workers who are out of work because of their policies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.
*
The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*There were never intended to be tens of thousands of jobs.
*
The pipeline wouldn't use tens of thousands of workers?[
No. 
Cornell University Report: *Permanent U.S. Jobs Could Be "As Few As 50."* A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute stated that the pipeline "*will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." *It estimated that "the new permanent US pipeline jobs in the US number as few as 50." The report also argued that the Perryman Group study ignored the negative consequences of the pipeline, which could lead to more jobs lost than would be created:

The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy.

[...]

Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



that the pipeline "*will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."
*
2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Typical con tool post.  Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now.  Later, maybe.  Not now.  The concern includes the obvious issue, called climate change.  Which, as a con, you co not believe in.  Though way over half the world, and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time.  But, as a con tool, you disagree with the science, you disagree with the countries of the world, you disagree with the US Military, but you agree with the energy companies.  Because you do not reason, you simply take what you are told to believe.  Sad.
Then there are the states, and the famers and ranchers, who oppose the pipeline.  Normal friends of the right, but when it comes to energy company money and the farmers and ranchers, the money wins.  Dipshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Over half the us, according to polls, oppose the pipeline now.*

That makes the jobs less important in some way?
*
and way over 90% of global science scientists tell us is man made and disasterous over time.* 

Yes, 75/77 is very impressive. Derp!


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Whatever, me con tool.  But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".  We lost 8.7 Million jobs in the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Probably more.  So, how much help is adding 4,650 jobs to the 8,700,000 jobs that we lost to the great republican recession.  That would be 4650 divided by 8.700,000.  Wow, me boy.  That would be .00054 of the jobs lost.  So small a fraction, it is hard to even say.  Why, it would be 54/1000 of 1% of the jobs lost.  What a help that would be.  But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.  They would go away again.  Completely.  Leaving only something under 50 permanent jobs.  Democratic legislation brought back 8,700,000 jobs.  republican legislation, you say, could bring back 54/10,000 as many jobs if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.  What a great bunch those republicans are.  So concerned about the workers they have managed to put out of work.  
And the thing is, me boy, there was no intent to help the suffering workers who were out of jobs. The intent was simply to help the energy companies.  To pump crap oil filled with sand and silt, to make a few more bucks.  And pollute our world more.  Perhaps if we could just kill our future populations, there would be no problem.  And, above all else, and by far the most important for con tools, the energy companies would be even richer.  Probably dead, but richer.


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes it is.  Except to con tools, who only listen to find out what they are supposed to believe.  To the rest of the world, yes, very important.  To rational people, yes very important.  To con tools, not important.  It is only important to believe what they are told to believe.  Because they only believe what they want.  And what their fellow tools believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".* 

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.

*But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.*

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?

*if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.*

Why would you ship oil _away_ from a refining center? Derp!


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*But as I said, it is not a "jobs Bill".*

Especially when Obama or Reid block it.
Oh, I forgot.  You are a con tool.  You do not know what a jobs bill is.  You just know about making the wealthy happy.  Your heroes do nothing to help the middle class, or the working people of this nation.  Because,  like you, they do not care.

*But it is really not that large, because the jobs are temporary.*

How many temporary "shovel ready" jobs were created by the stimulus plan?  
Do you think I am keeping track of shovel ready jobs?  The only thing I am happy about is that the Stimulus has worked to slowly bring back all 8.7 million jobs lost to the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Because if we had relied on republicans, it would pretty certainly have turned into the great Republican Depression of 2008.  

*if we would help ruin the economy by piping silt laden crude to the lower part of our country to load on ships to send around the world.*

Why would you ship oil _away_ from a refining center? Derp!
Why would you pump oil to a port if you were not going to load in onto tankers?  Dipshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*The president is supposed to do what the people want.
*
The people want an end to unlimited illegals invading.

*As many as they could find.*

That few?

*Actually, we have refineries all over the US.*

And the idea that someone would ship oil to one and then ship it away is stupid, even for a liberal.
*
But I know you like to get our oil out of the US.
*
That won't be a problem, it the Canadians finally build their own to the Pacific. Derp!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Why would you pump oil to a port if you were not going to load in onto tankers?*

Because the refineries are there, moron.

Of course you'd build a refinery where it was difficult to bring in tankers? LOL!


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
> I can see why Obama dislikes the idea.


Private money using eminent domain to take land from Americans to benefit a foreign corporation.
I can see why the Republican Right loves the idea.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 2,500 - 4,650 jobs created with private money.
> ...



Oh no, building a pipeline with eminent domain.
That's never been done before with the 100s of thousands of miles of existing pipelines.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Using eminent domain to benefit a foreign corporation, you mean.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yeah, just awful, buying a few feet of land to bury a pipeline.
Just awful, hasn't ever been done before in the history of the nation.

Thank goodness Obama was able to decisively protect us from that.
After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.


----------



## Rshermr (May 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Bought a house in washington state with a pipeline next door.  Poor neighbor who had the pipeline had a hell of a time selling his house, at well below others around, because of the restrictions, and the potential to have it leak and explode.  As it did 25 miles north, killing a child.  Those pipelines are, you know, just a few feet of land.  All the way across peoples acreage, or lots, and when they leak (they always leak, it is just when) they sometimes leave lasting horror stories.  Look up exploding pipeline in Bellingham.  And then wonder why people dislike pipelines.


----------



## Rshermr (May 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*The president is supposed to do what the people want.
*
The people want an end to unlimited illegals invading.
Did you think that illegals had something to do with oil pipelines???
If we want to stop illegals, then corporations need to stop hiring them, me boy.  And corporations need to stop going to Mexico to set up shops to explain to them where to go in the US to find jobs.  At minimum wage, and less.  Because corporations love low cost labor.

*Actually, we have refineries all over the US.*

And the idea that someone would ship oil to one and then ship it away is stupid, even for a liberal.

They are not shipping it to the  port.  They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port.  Did you miss that.    Question is, if you want to send crude to a refinery, say in California, why pipe it to a sea port so you could re route it to California.  Sounds stupid, even for a Con.  But it is what you are suggesting.  Certainly not what any liberal would be dumb enough to believe.  Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.  Ever think of that, con tool?
*
But I know you like to get our oil out of the US.
*
That won't be a problem, it the Canadians finally build their own to the Pacific.
Did you notice that europe and the Gulf are not in the pacific.  But they could ship it to the Atlantic.  Why do you suppose they don't?


----------



## boedicca (May 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




^^^ Typical Prog underwea-rshmeer ^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rshermr (May 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes it was.  Very.  As opposed to a con tool, who would take the money from the energy corporation, build a pipeline across sensitive aquifers and other environment, so it could go to the coast, be loaded in tankers, and become fully part of the world oil supply.  And not affect petroleum prices in the us much at all.  Because con tools do not believe earth scientists.  They only pay attention to energy corporations, who want to be richer.  So they can continue to pay the right wing lap dogs to do as they want.
And he may have paid attention to the fact that Bakken oil is among the dirtiest in the world.  And could very well cause a huge impact on global climate change.  You know, climate change, which the con lap dogs are paid to say does not exist.  Like you, me con tool
So, we get:
1.  Wealthier Oil and Energy Corporations.
2.  Wealthier conservative politicians.
3.  Gas at the same price as today.
4.  A good chance of added catastrophic global climate change effects.
5.  Potential water system disasters.
6.  Land value decreases.
7.  Potential deaths due to explosions.

Wow.  No wonder cons love the idea so much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Did you think that illegals had something to do with oil pipelines???*

As long as we're saying "the president is supposed to do what the people want", I wanted to bring up another instance where Obama isn't.
*
If we want to stop illegals, then corporations need to stop hiring them, me boy.*

And government needs to stop releasing them once caught, ya gay pirate.

*They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port.* 

Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be  Obama level stupidity.

*Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.*

Because liberals are clueless.





Unless there's a port in the Nebraska-Kansas area?
*
Did you notice that europe and the Gulf are not in the pacific.*

Did you notice that China and Japan are?
*
But they could ship it to the Atlantic.  Why do you suppose they don't?*

Because the Atlantic is about 3 times the distance as the Pacific from their oil producing areas. Derp!

I mean, seriously, can you read a fucking map you moron?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



After 7 years of dithering. Truly heroic.
*
Yes it was.*

If it was so dangerous, 7 hours would have been enough.

7 years? What a pussy!


----------



## Rshermr (May 29, 2016)

MOUNTAINS.  


*They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port*
The majority are not.
Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be  Obama level stupidity.
But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska, me boy.  With way more capacity than the XL.  And that is what they do in Houston.  
Unless the oil companies are stupider than you, which is not really possible, refining takes place once.  The refined product is shipped after that point, obviously.  So, you bring crude to the point of either a refinery, or a shipping location.  They can be either, or both.  But crude is processed one time.  *THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE.  By ship (primarily), train, or truck.  *
Take alaska.  It is brought by pipeline to Valdez.  It is not refined in Valdez, me boy.  It is loaded on ships and sent to various refineries. The first in NE Washington state, though some goes to Japan and China.  And a large part goes on to California.  
So, by the way, the oil coming from Alberta and S. Dakota useing the XL pipeline would be a very small portion of the US oil.  It would be more Canadian.  But overall, no really big deal. 

*Liberals think they are piping it to a port to load in into tankers.  *
Because liberals are clueless.
Not at all, me boy. Because liberals are smart.  That is exactly what they do in Valdez, Alaska.   Rational people believe that.  You are clueless if you think that the product, and the raw material, are not shipped from terminus locations with refineries to other locations, worldwide.  Read some, it is amazing what you can learn.
Actually, because that is mostly what the XL pipeline would do.  Pipe crude to Houston, where it would be refined, then loaded into tankers to be distributed worldwide.  You see, tankers are not refineries.  I say that because I once had a con on this board  tell me I was stupid for not knowing crude was refined on tankers.  But oil is commonly brought to refineries by ship, or by pipeline,  and refined product is often transported by tankers to other parts of the world.  As is crude, in some cases.  You see, trucks and trains do not work well trans ocean.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2016)

Summarizes the liberal minion idiot mind-set mentality _flawlessly_...

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." -William F. Buckley


----------



## Rshermr (May 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2016)

This is the first time I even remotely considered Trump a viable option for my vote. Bringing in the Reagan Administration to recreate one of the greatest economic successes in U.S. history means Trump might not be quite the reality show idiot I thought he was.

Reaganomics Band Gets Back Together to Advise Trump on Plan


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> MOUNTAINS.
> 
> 
> *They are in favor of building a pipeline to the port*
> ...



Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be  Obama level stupidity.

*But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska*

Because they produce much more than they can refine.

*THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.  *

You got one right. They do that even without  adding Keystone.


----------



## P@triot (May 29, 2016)

A *billion* dollars just to process the freaking paperwork for approving food stamps. The kind of efficiencies and cost effective processes that could only come from government. Unbelievable...

Approving Food Stamps Costs the Economy $1 Billion


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > MOUNTAINS.
> ...



Sending oil by pipeline to a refining center, in order to send it by tanker to another refining center would be  Obama level stupidity.

*But, of course, that is EXACTLY what they do in Alaska*

Because they produce much more than they can refine.
Hardly, me boy.  It is simply easier  All crude from the alaka pipeline is simply sent onward, mostly to Washington Refineries or California refineries.  Because it is simpler.  But, here is the other thing you need to understand.  They can increase refining capacity to match supply of crude, should they want to.  Which is easy for rational people to know.  
But it does give conservatives the opportunity to say something classless about a sitting US President.  Oh, wait, they do not need a reason.  Because they are classless.  IE, without integrity.

*THEN, THE REFINED PRODUCTS (GASOLINE, DIESEL, HEATING OIL, ETC.) ARE SHIPPED FROM THERE. By ship (primarily), train, or truck.  *

You got one right. They do that even without  adding Keystone.
Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center.  Glad you cleared up your error.  Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center.
*
Yes, after they refine it. Derp!

*Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!*

But you won't.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Indeed, by pipline to a refining center in order to send it by tanker to another refining center.
*
Yes, after they refine it. Derp!
Or before they refine it, as crude.  

*Takes a big person to admit their mistake!!!*

But you won't
Really.  You should actually admit your own mistake.  Like people who have integrity.  Except, obviously, you have no integrity.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Another prime example of how liberalism forces jobs overseas and destroys economies...

More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yes, piping heavy sour Canadian crude to Texas, and shipping it away, while still importing Venezuelan heavy sour crude. A plan only a moron would believe.

Well the crude still gets to Texas and still gets refined in Texas, no thanks to the bravery of Obama and his 7 years of dithering.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Another prime example of how liberalism forces jobs overseas and destroys economies...
> 
> More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.
> 
> 20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency


just more Bullshit!
The DailySignal


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Another prime example of how liberalism forces jobs overseas and destroys economies...
> ...


just more Bullshit!
The DailySignal 

What is really sad is that :
1.  Con tools are unable to think for themselves and have to go to the bat shit crazy con web sites, like The Daily Signal, to get their cut and paste material.  God save them if they had to do actual research using rational, impartial sources.  How could they have enough ammo for their 24/7/365 attack campaigns.  Poor ignorant tools.
2.  The ignorant tools want to require thinking people to check out the link to their nonsensical links, which hurt the brain of rational people.  

But, for the con tool who does not want to ever have to think for themselves. like Todd or Rottweiller, it is perfect.  Con tools want to have their beliefs provided to them. Their belief system is based on what makes them feel good:  They like to be angry, they like to be part of their group cause they love group think, they like to get talking points cause they think that they have knowledge no one else has, all because they are stupid.  Sad existence.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Another prime example of how liberalism forces jobs overseas and destroys economies...
> ...


Look at the flat earther denying reality.... 

20,642 New Regulations Added In The Obama Presidency


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


What's hilarious is listening to these tools like Ed and Rshermr here _pretend_ like they even know what the Daily Signal is.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, piping heavy sour Canadian crude to Texas, and shipping it away, while still importing Venezuelan heavy sour crude. A plan only a moron would believe.

Well the crude still gets to Texas and still gets refined in Texas, no thanks to the bravery of Obama and his 7 years of dithering.
Yup.  So you admit that we do not need the XL to allow corporations to destroy our environment and fuel global climate change so our world can become un-inhabitable. Thanks for admitting that.  Now if you could only understand it. But, of course, that will not happen because you only believe con talking points.  Dipshit.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...




What are you born fucking ignorant or just play one?

God damn even the main stream media played one of odumbos over reach with the EPA on coal...


It doesn't take a rocket scienctist to research all the New regulations in the past 7 years.


.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Just one of a couple hundred bat shit crazy con sites financed by the wealthy far right.  Yes, we know.  Because, you see, we have rational minds.  But I can see why you would not understand:
5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study
Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist 

I am sure this will not help.  Cause con tools are incapable of thought.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'll admit, the 7 years of dithering, before finally deciding against the pipeline, will not stop Canadian tar sands oil from moving through the US in less efficient, less safe ways.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




What are you born fucking ignorant or just play one?

God damn even the main stream media played one of odumbos over reach with the EPA on coal...


It doesn't take a rocket scienctist to research all the New regulations in the past 7 years.

But then you need to have something that you do not have:  A BRAIN.

By the way, what is a scienctist?

Or is that simply proof that you do not know what science is?


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Well if that's the case - please dispute with facts the number of regulations under Obama. Come on chief...put your money where your mouth is. You talk a lot of shit but you can't back any of it up. We're talking about the indisputable number of Obama regulations which you are denying like a flat earther idiot.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I am sure this will not help.  Cause con tools are incapable of thought.



You know what is _hilarious_? If liberals are "smarter" and conservatives are unable of thought - why do you people need to live off of conservatives and why are you unable to debate us? 

Most of you people are incapable of holding jobs and _need_ conservatives for your basic survival. And when we get into these message boards, you "smart" people get your asses handed to you in a huge way. Because there is nothing "smart" about you. You people can't even grasp basic economics or basic business. It's no wonder you need governmet - you're too stupid to survive on your own.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



The fucking tard can spend 5 minutes checking my spelling and grammar and rechecking his grammar and spelling before he posts...


Yet to fucking lazy to look up odumbos regulations the past 7 years...


Fucking Obama Peter puffer.


.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The fucking tard can spend 5 minutes checking my spelling and grammar and rechecking his grammar and spelling before he posts...


Yet to fucking lazy to look up odumbos regulations the past 7 years...


Fucking Obama Peter puffer.

Sorry about that.  I thought that was just part of your normal stupidity.
You have posted nothing about any number of regulations, dipshit.  Because you used a partial source that no rational person believes.  See, you are stupid.  And stupid people do not understand the concepts of rationality, impartial sources, journalism, learning.  Because, you see, cons are not capable of understanding. 
However, you did prove that you have no integrity.  Which supports what I continue to point out.  Calling a sitting president what you choose to call him does that for you. 
So, I am done reading your posts.  Because you are, again, too stupid.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...





Zzzzzzzzzz

All that to say you are to fucking stupid to use Google??


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


FOX Rumor Mill


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


FOX Rumor Mill 

The poor ignorant bastard can not help himself.  Con tools use impartial sources only if there are no bat shit crazy con web sites, like the Daily signal or FOX to use.  Because they like being ignorant.  Dipshits.  If you add three con tools IQ, they reach idiot status, cumulatively.

What is really funny to rational minds is con tools point to the 20,642 new regulations subject as being fact.  But a simple google search I wasted my time on showed 5 pages with 47 nut case stupid crazy con web sites, and no rational and impartial sites discussing the "subject".
  Now, if I ever found nearly 60 liberal nut case sites, and no impartial sites, discussing any subject, I would not source it.  Because, as any rational source knows, the sites are partial.  But con tools use partial sites because they are stupid, and do not know of rational argument.  Poor ignorant beings.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So basically _every_ news outlet in the world is a "rumor mill" if it reports on a story that proves liberals are the oppressive idiots? Got it chief....


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


So dispute it "genius". Show us how the info is incorrect. No? Didn't think so...


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> So basically _every_ news outlet in the world is a "rumor mill" if it reports on a story that proves liberals are the oppressive idiots?


Heritage.org think tank propaganda is hardly credible enough to merit "reporting."


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The burden of proof for the opinion of the think tank is on Heritage.org, no one else.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > So basically _every_ news outlet in the world is a "rumor mill" if it reports on a story that proves liberals are the oppressive idiots?
> ...


And then I added Fox News _junior_. Now what?!?


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Ahahahahahhaahaha! In other words, you can't dispute it but your so mad that it has been released to the public!


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


First of all, the FOX Gossip Channel is not news, and FOX Nation is even LESS credible than gossip.
And both radical Right-wing "sources" are merely parroting the same Heritage.org think tank opinion which has no credibility also. They can't even back up their bullshit made up numbers or you would have cited the proof. The burden of proof in on the source flogging the numbers.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


They publicly released statistical *facts*. If they "lied" it would be incredibly easy for you and your libtard sites to _prove_ it as all regulations, Executive Orders, Presidential Memo's, legislation, etc. are a matter of *public* *record*. The fact that none of you can dispute these facts is simply further evidence that they are indisputable facts.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


So in other words, you can't backup shit because Heritage is the source for all the made up numbers. That's right, if you click on the links to the references heritage uses in their "study" they simply link you back to another Heritage "study." Heritage makes up the numbers and then cites themselves as the source "public record" numbers, but you knew that already, SUCKER.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


So basically _every_ news outlet in the world is a "rumor mill" if it reports on a story that proves liberals are the oppressive idiots? Got it chief.... 

No.  You do not use news outlets.  You use bat shit crazy con web sites.  Because you are a con tool.  And you are so stupid you think others will believe your partial sources.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...





Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Now, now, me poor ignorant con tool.  I would never, ever use a post from a far left nut case web site, because I have integrity.  Look up that word, and do the best you can to understand what it means.
I would not be an asshole like you, and suggest you need to check the crap from my source if it were a nut case site.  But that is, again, because I value integrity.  And I know you do not.  But if you think I am going to spend time searching for information about your conservative bullshit, your nuts.  Dipshit.
And, me boy, nothing at all you have posted is indisputable.  What is, however, indisputable, is that  you are  an idiot.  Congenital, probably.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Oh lookie a 2 sec search using Google, even the tampon squad huffington post has an article on odumbos gazzillon new regulations.

Of Bunny Rabbits and Stupid Regulations


.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So, let me see if I can understand your twisted logic.  You want me, who has integrity and only uses impartial sources, to spend my time looking for information from your bat shit crazy con web sites that are well know partial, conservative sites.  So, you are not going to prove your post using impartial sites. 
Makes perfect sense to the conservative twisted mind.  Because you do not know how to reason.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



*Fox News CEO Admits That The Network Is Not In The News Business ...*
www.*news*corpse.com/ncWP/?p=27363

*Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda*
*
Now, I will try to educate you, though I know it is a waste of time.  *
*FOX HAS SAID FOR YEARS THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING NEWS, THAT THEIR BROADCASTS ARE OF AGENDA.  TRUTH IS NOT REQUIRED, ME BOY.  *
*FOX WAS CAUGHT FIRING THEIR OWN REPORTERS FOR REFUSING TO LIE.  WHICH, TO ANY RATIONAL PERSON, MEANS THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE FOX.*

*GET IT YET???  MOST OF THE OTHER BAT SHIT CRAZY CON SITES ARE WORSE.  Rational people already know that.  What a surprise that you missed the memo.*

*DIPSHIT*


----------



## Indeependent (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So all those years when I was explaining to simpletons why FoxNews was FauxNews all I needed was this Link.


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Yup.  Ran into it a few years ago.  Murdock got caught in a court case, and his only way out was to admit that his "news Channel" did not actually do news.  Rather, he stated, they are an ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL.  Other channels are required to show some integrity.  Fox, however, need not play by their rules.  Because although the conservative audience is too stupid to question the fox drivel, Murdock just keeps attacking with lies and bull shit, 24/7/365.  There are lots and lots of sites explaining the outing.  Funny.


----------



## P@triot (May 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


And ironically enough it is outlets like CBS and Dan Rather that were caught in scandals of misinformation...


----------



## Rshermr (May 30, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And ironically enough it is outlets like CBS and Dan Rather that were caught in scandals of misinformation... 

Damn.  Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are.  Now, me boy, try again to listen:
Cbs, like other stations, has an occasional reporter who makes mistakes, even does things outside of what news agencies are allowed to do,  So Rather got outside the bounds allowed by news agencies, or stations.  Now, me boy, here is the difference:
Fox News has PERSONALITIES, and they work for an ENTERTAINMENT STATION.  So, they lie ALL THE TIME.  Non stop.  And there is nothing that is ever done about it.  
Now, with other stations, aimed at the general public, if a newsman lies, he will almost always be caught by the station, by the other news casters, and by the public.  But, in the case of fox, the station does not care, the other broadcasters lie all the time because they are allowed to, and the public is almost all people like you, who want to believe what is being broadcast.  Like you, they love being lied to as long as they hear what they WANT to here.  
JUST LIKE YOU, DIPSHIT.


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Funny.  When you rub the truth into the face of conservatives, they give up the attack and run like rats.  Which is also normal for them.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Now, with other stations, aimed at the general public, if a newsman lies, he will almost always be caught by the station, by the other news casters, and by the public.



_Exactly_, little boy. And since Dan Rather and CBS were caught *lying* while that has never been the case for Fox News - it's safe to say that you just got bent over like my little prison bitch. But....being a liberal...I'm sure you're into that sort of thing so it doesn't bother you like it would a normal, rational, and honest person. Game over, junior. Go home now son.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Friedman's ideas have been largely discredited by experience.  All of the countries which had Friedman's policies imposed on them by the IMF and the World Bank, have reputiated them, and reversed them.

Friedman's policies have resulted in higher prices, lower wages, increased poverty, and the destruction of the social safety net.  In South America, thousands of leftists were murdered to suppress opposition to these policies and the suffering they inflicted on the populations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



*Friedman's ideas have been largely discredited by experience.* 

Which ones? Be specific.

*Friedman's policies have resulted in higher prices, lower wages, increased poverty, and the destruction of the social safety net.* 

Yeah, but enough about Venezuela.

*In South America, thousands of leftists were murdered to suppress opposition to these policies*

It's awful when Commie thugs are stopped.


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Now, with other stations, aimed at the general public, if a newsman lies, he will almost always be caught by the station, by the other news casters, and by the public.



_Exactly_, little boy. And since Dan Rather and CBS were caught *lying* while that has never been the case for Fox News - it's safe to say that you just got bent over like my little prison bitch. But....being a liberal...I'm sure you're into that sort of thing so it doesn't bother you like it would a normal, rational, and honest person. Game over, junior. Go home now son.
Uh, does it hurt to be as stupid as you are.  News stations catch and punish those who lie.  Fox does not, because they are not about news.  As their CEO stated.  So they get to lie, and they do lie, all the time.  And, dipshit, they get caught lying all the time.  As they did in the link I showed you.  But, like all con tools, you just go on and lie yourself, all the time.

At *Fox *and *Fox News*, 1*0 percent of the claims PunditFact has rated have been True,* 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.
And as for *CNN*? It has the best record among the cable networks, as *80 percent of of the claims rated are Half True or better.*
*PunditFact checks in on the cable news channels*

*Politifact Updates Data On News Sources, Finds Fox News Lies Even More Than Before*
Politifact Updates Data On News Sources, Finds Fox News Lies Even More Than Before | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

*‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies*
Fox News leads the major TV networks in broadcasting lies, but that doesn’t mean CNN or MSNBC are far behind.
*By MintPress News Desk *| May 12, 2015







*MINNEAPOLIS — Analysis of Fox News suggests that the TV news network is a leader in lying to the American public*.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



You left out Chile, Argentina, Boliva and Brazil.  Thousands were "disappeared" in Agentina.  Additionally, Poland, after the fall of communism, Russia and South Africa.  The Chicago School austerity program put in place in Greece, actually made the debt crisis worse.

Milton Friedman: a study in failure


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


*
You left out Chile, Argentina, Boliva and Brazil.* 

Yeah, Commies were a threat there too.

*The Chicago School austerity program put in place in Greece,*

What kind of drugs do you use to believe Greece ever followed the Chicago School?


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What do you think would happen if the 98% no longer received Welfare, Food Stamps and Middle Class Subsidies for utilities?
We'd both be hanging from a lightpole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


*
What do you think would happen if the 98% no longer received Welfare, Food Stamps and Middle Class Subsidies for utilities?*

In Greece?


----------



## Dragonlady (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Europe’s Greek lesson: Austerity has failed

A Greek Morality Tale


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


In America where the Middle Class is Taxed to support the poor.
I really am expecting a serious answer as I presume you are not THAT detached from those who make way less than 15K/year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.
When did Greece ever follow the Chicago School?


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Greece is not known for being an especially industrious nation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



In America, "*98% receive Welfare, Food Stamps and Middle Class Subsidies for utilities"*?

I know the numbers for Social spending have skyrocketed under Obama, but we're not at 98% yet.

And what middle class subsidies for utilities are you talking about?


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Gas, electric, cell phones, tax payer subsidized rent and mortgages.
You really should go to more meetings held by your representatives who explain why the poor require assistance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


*
Gas, electric, cell phones, tax payer subsidized rent and mortgages.*

The middle class gets all that?


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You really are a sociopath.
And you can't read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*What do you think would happen if the 98% no longer received Welfare, Food Stamps and Middle Class Subsidies for utilities?
*
Derp.


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
Gas, electric, cell phones, tax payer subsidized rent and mortgages.*

The middle class gets all that?

Yup.  One of the few things middle class people get.  I know you would rather take from them than give.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*One of the few things middle class people get.*

What programs give middle class people subsidized gas, electric, cell phones, rent and mortgages?


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You really are a sociopath.
And you can't read.

He is a proven con tool.  
And, as a con tool, he has selective hearing.  And, as for all con tools, he is then able to believe only what he chooses to believe.  And he believes that the middle class are getting too much of the income of this nation, and the very wealthy are getting way to little.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
And he believes that the middle class are getting too much of the income of this nation, and the very wealthy are getting way to little.
*
You need to wash your hands after pulling that out of your ass. Derp!


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*One of the few things middle class people get.*

What programs give middle class people subsidized gas, electric, cell phones, rent and mortgages?  
So, Independent's assessment of you is correct.  You can not read.  But he missed the fact that you are butt lazy and as always want others to explain things to you.  My response, for what it is worth, would be to tell you to fuck off.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*You can not read.* 

Show me where 98% of Americans get subsidized utilities.

I'll be happy to read your proof. Moron.


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why not try getting off your chair and attending a Town Hall meeting where your local Representatives explain how they use Federal, State and Municipal Middle Class Tax Money to subsidize the poor?
But that would mean you'd have to leave your nursing home and have somebody drive you to an area where there actually are poor people.


----------



## Rshermr (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Greece is not known for being an especially industrious nation.



But they are known for being a very liberal/socialist nation. And like all other nations, they completely collapsed under that failed ideology. It simply doesn't work. It never works. It never has and it never will. Sadly though, liberals would rather everyone be in poverty "equally" than accept that some people will have more than they do but all would prosper more under capitalism. Envy is an _ugly_ thing.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Why not try getting off your chair and attending a Town Hall meeting where your local Representatives explain how they use Federal, State and Municipal Middle Class Tax Money to subsidize the poor?



May I make an exponentially better suggestion Indee? Why not try staying in your chair but simply missing one single episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians so that you can read the U.S. Constitution just once and see that it is illegal for the federal government to (and I quote) "subsidize the poor". That's *not* why we have government. And shame on you for pissing on the grave of every single person who sacrificed their life for this nation by being too lazy to even know that much.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Here's a better lesson sweetie: everything fails with liberalism. That's what liberalism does. If you don't implement failed liberalism, you don't need "austerity". By the way sweetie - Greece never implemented real austerity. The people rioted and lost their minds and losing what the government promised them (promises that failed liberalism is never able to keep).

It's amazing that liberals are so profoundly stupid that can't learn from other nations. They see the failure world-wide that liberalism has created and their response is "but we just need more liberalism". Duh....ok. If a little liberalism creates failure. A lot of liberalism will make it worse.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> What do you think would happen if the 98% no longer received Welfare, Food Stamps and Middle Class Subsidies for utilities?



Why would that ever happen? After all, the U.S. is just filled with these thoughtful, caring, selfless, bleeding-heart liberals like you and Dragon Lady. Certainly you will see to it (along with George Soros, Target, etc.) that nobody goes hungry or without proper healthcare - _would_ you? You're not going to tell me now that you're too lazy to do everything you claim you want done, are you?


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


As usual, you just make stuff up. Not one thing you said is true - thus why you don't have a single link or fact to back up your nonsense.

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist who *received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences*

What are your credentials? Oh that's right - you don't have any. Game over. Unlike liberals, Milton didn't blindly subscribe to an ideology. He studied economics. He studied history. He learned from all of it, crunched the data, and indisputably proved that the liberal ideology is a failed ideology. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Most liberals can't. It doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



The _only_ thing that has been "discredited" is the failed ideology which is liberalism...

As the Financial Times reported, IMF officials “confronted Germany over Greece’s *unsustainable debt burden*,”

That's what liberalism creates - unsustainable debt burdens. Only a greedy idiot believes that government can provide for the people. It can't.

Europe Rolls Over on Greek Debt (Again), With No Reforms


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Middle Class Tax Money to subsidize the poor?
*
I'm more interested in your claim about 98% getting subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Thanks, but that's not proof of his 98% claim.

You are what is technically called a Stupid Bastard.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The _only_ thing that has been "discredited" is the failed ideology which is liberalism...
> 
> As the Financial Times reported, IMF officials “confronted Germany over Greece’s *unsustainable debt burden*,”
> 
> ...



Greece's debt was not due to liberalism, but rather graft, corruption, and poor management - something that George W. Bush knows a LOT about.


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Why not try getting off your chair and attending a Town Hall meeting where your local Representatives explain how they use Federal, State and Municipal Middle Class Tax Money to subsidize the poor?
> ...



Rottweiler, I would take advice from anyone who seemed to have an IQ above 0.
You have failed repeatedly to present as such.
You are an ignoramus of the lowest order.

Hey!  I have an idea...Prove to me from the U.S. Constitution that it is illegal to subsidize the poor.


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And you are what is technically called a Neo-Conservative tool.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The _only_ thing that has been "discredited" is the failed ideology which is liberalism...
> ...


Again....nothing to back it up. Just making stuff up as you go to cover for the failure of liberalism.

Incidentally - it's comical that you would mention "graft, corruption, and poor management". See - those are reasons alone for small, limited government. History is filled with the corruption by those in power. Absolutely filled. So as usual, the liberal ideology defeats itself.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Gladly. The states *delegated* (key word) 18 enumerated powers to the federal government. The federal government is specifically limited to those 18 powers and not one more. Both the U.S. Constitution itself and the writings of our founders were _very_ clear about that. And guess what? Not one of those powers is "providing for the poor", "feeding the hungry", or anything that even remotely resembles something along those lines. Their powers are things like "coin money", "protect IP through a Patent Office", "Defense", etc.

Now, many a desperate liberal has come along over the years and intentionally tried to corrupt the Constitution by falsely proclaiming that the "general welfare" clause makes it ok for the federal government to engage in the social nonsense you desire. But once again, the writing of our founders was exceptionally clear on that. The "general welfare" clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers and nothing more.

"that Congress had *not* unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were *restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as *it was never meant they should provide for that welfare* *but by the exercise of the enumerated powers*, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Thomas Jefferson (June 16, 1817)

So, once again I humiliate you with facts while you resort to personal insults. I think it's safe to say that half of my IQ exponentially exceeds your entire IQ. Thanks for playing junior.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

By the way junior - I not only gave you the exact name above (Thomas Jefferson) but also the exact date of the quote above. Gives you ample opportunity to do your own research and actually learn something for once.


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Guess what?
The General Welfare Clause, CONSISTENTLY ignored by Conservatives for the last 200 years, has been interpreted to keep Sociopathic Neo-Conservatives from being hung on trees.
YOUR personal interpretation doesn't obviate the FACT that our Federal, State and Municipal Tax Dollars ARE going to subsidize the poor via the General Welfare Clause.

Now try again without parroting the Heritage Foundation and WITHOUT ignoring the General Welfare Clause.
And no, I personally do NOT interpret the General Welfare Clause as meaning giving Welfare to the poor.
Unfortunately, I am NOT on The Supreme Court or a Member of Congress.
Of course, if I WERE a Member of Congress I would be stomping on the greedy asses of Globalists who are forcing my Representatives to tax me to keep the poor from hanging your pathetic ass out to dry.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Guess what?
> The General Welfare Clause, CONSISTENTLY ignored by Conservatives for the last 200 years, has been interpreted to keep Sociopathic Neo-Conservatives from being hung on trees.



Uh....what? That's not even remotely coherent. What are you talking about? Who are you talking about?



Indeependent said:


> YOUR personal interpretation doesn't obviate the FACT that our Federal, State and Municipal Tax Dollars ARE going to subsidize the poor via the General Welfare Clause.



_My_ personal interpretation?!? _What_?!? The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it says - there is no "interpretation". On top of that, I provided you with Thomas Jefferson's own words (and he was the freaking architect of our entire structure of government). He not only personally penned the entire Declaration of Independence but his words, ideas, and legislation was used in the construct of the U.S. Constitution.

By the way chief, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states, counties, or municipalities from engaging in the social safety nets (though each state might or might not having something with regards to that in the individual state constitutions).



Indeependent said:


> Now try again without parroting the Heritage Foundation and WITHOUT ignoring the General Welfare Clause.



You are one bizarre dude. Not only did I *not* "ignore" the General Welfare clause - I'm the one who brought it up and just taught _you_ about it. And then I provided a quote from Thomas Jefferson himself proving unequivocally that the General Welfare clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers that the federal government is restricted to.



Indeependent said:


> And no, I personally do NOT interpret the General Welfare Clause as meaning giving Welfare to the poor.
> Unfortunately, I am NOT on The Supreme Court or a Member of Congress.
> Of course, if I WERE a Member of Congress I would be stomping on the greedy asses of Globalists who are forcing my Representatives to tax me to keep the poor from hanging your pathetic ass out to dry.



Well that's bizarre. Your position is that you shouldn't pay taxes at all but I should be taxed until I am "hung out to dry"? And why would that be? What is my great crime that warrants me being "hung out to dry" and what is it that you've done that absolves you from paying your fair share?


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> And no, I personally do NOT interpret the General Welfare Clause as meaning giving Welfare to the poor. Unfortunately, I am NOT on The Supreme Court or a Member of Congress. Of course, if I WERE a Member of Congress I would be stomping on the greedy asses of Globalists who are forcing my Representatives to tax me to keep the poor from hanging your pathetic ass out to dry.



You seem _really_ angry. May I ask why? Why are you so pissed off at society?


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> YOUR personal interpretation doesn't obviate the FACT that our Federal, State and Municipal Tax Dollars ARE going to subsidize the poor via the General Welfare Clause.



I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I'm well aware that my tax dollars are being used illegally. That's precisely why I'm complaining. What is your point? That its ok simply because it is being done? Well - that would be like someone saying "YOUR personal interpretation about rape laws doesn't obviate the FACT that women are raped every single day in this country". Yeah? Ok? So should we just accept rape and throw out the law then or should we constantly work towards seeing the law strictly enforced until rape is eradicated from society?


----------



## Indeependent (May 31, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > And no, I personally do NOT interpret the General Welfare Clause as meaning giving Welfare to the poor. Unfortunately, I am NOT on The Supreme Court or a Member of Congress. Of course, if I WERE a Member of Congress I would be stomping on the greedy asses of Globalists who are forcing my Representatives to tax me to keep the poor from hanging your pathetic ass out to dry.
> ...


Why are you NOT angry?
Perhaps our Anti-General Welfare Claus Free Trade behavior has been good for you.


----------



## P@triot (May 31, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


There is nothing "anti-general welfare clause" about free trade. You seem confused right now.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Actually, the problem is simple.  The clown is a con tool.  Which, by definition, means that he does not have the ability to reason.  He has been told what to believe, and he does as he is told.  Spends his time in the bat shit crazy con web sites, of which there are many paid for and financially supported by the far, far, far right.  
The con tool is incapable of rational thought, and therefor of rational argument.  But, it is simple to know what their beliefs are.  Go to conservative talking points, and you will find 90% of his beliefs reduced to statements he can cut and paste (best he can do).  The rest is just simple personal attack.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 1, 2016)

*April jobless rates down over the year in 269 of 387 metro areas; payroll jobs up in 327*
Source: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics*

Economic News Release USDL-16-1095 

Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment Summary 

For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, June 1, 2016 

Technical information: 
Employment: (202) 691-6559 * sminfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/sae 
Unemployment: (202) 691-6392 * lausinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/lau 

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov 


METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- APRIL 2016 


Unemployment rates were lower in April than a year earlier in 269 of the 387 metropolitan areas, higher in 94 areas, and unchanged in 24 areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Twenty-five areas had jobless rates of less than 3.0 percent and seven areas had rates of at least 10.0 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment increased over the year in 327 metropolitan areas, decreased in 54 areas, and was unchanged in 6 areas. The national unemployment rate in April was 4.7 percent, not seasonally adjusted, down from 5.1 percent a year earlier. 
.... 

Metropolitan Division Nonfarm Employment (Not Seasonally Adjusted) 

In April, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 36 of the 38 metropolitan divisions over the year and was unchanged in Lynn-Saugus-Marblehead, Mass., and Nashua, N.H.-Mass. The largest over-the-year increase in employment among the metropolitan divisions occurred in New York-Jersey City-White Plains, N.Y.-N.J. (+145,600), followed by Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas (+111,900), and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif. (+106,800). (See table 4.) 

The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment among the metropolitan divisions occurred in Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas (+4.7 percent), followed by Haverhill-Newburyport-Amesbury Town, Mass.-N.H. (+4.4 percent), and San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco, Calif. (+4.1 percent). 

_____________ 
The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for May is scheduled to be released on Friday, June 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT). The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for May is scheduled to be released on Wednesday, June 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).

Read more: Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment Summary


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Projecting. The cornerstone of the mindless liberal. Everything you just stated flawlessly describes the liberal. Liberalism is the complete and total absence of intellectualism. A liberal _feels_ everything. That's why they support failed policy. Because they don't study the facts, they refuse to look at history, and they don't care what the results are. They just feel that they want socialism, so everything else be damned. And it is why they get so incredibly frustrated debating with conservatives. You can't make a logical case based on irrational emotion. And liberalism is built entirely on irrational emotion.

Meanwhile, the liberal masters are laughing all the way to the bank. While the liberal minions on this site wallow in poverty, people like Barack Obama and Hilldabeast are rolling in tens of millions of dollars. They sure as hell aren't sharing what they have. But they do laugh at how all of you are too stupid to realize that you vote for the 1% while crying about the 1%.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Projecting. The cornerstone of the mindless liberal. Everything you just stated flawlessly describes the liberal. Liberalism is the complete and total absence of intellectualism. A liberal _feels_ everything. That's why they support failed policy. Because they don't study the facts, they refuse to look at history, and they don't care what the results are. They just feel that they want socialism, so everything else be damned. And it is why they get so incredibly frustrated debating with conservatives. You can't make a logical case based on irrational emotion. And liberalism is built entirely on irrational emotion.

Meanwhile, the liberal masters are laughing all the way to the bank. While the liberal minions on this site wallow in poverty, people like Barack Obama and Hilldabeast are rolling in tens of millions of dollars. They sure as hell aren't sharing what they have. But they do laugh at how all of you are too stupid to realize that you vote for the 1% while crying about the 1%

Wow.  There must be some place where we get all the liberal talking points.  Though I have never seen that place, nor that list.  Perhaps you can point me to it, dipshit.

Here is yours, me boy:
Conservative Talking Points - A Conservative's Debating Tool and Reference Database of Political Knowledge
Over 1000 conservative talking points, presented as facts for the conservative tool. So the conservative tool will not need to think.  Because they do not want to have to think.  Cons want to be angry, and they want to be part of a group that thinks like them.  Mostly, they want to be told what to believe and what to do.  

So, if there were talking points for liberals, I missed the memo.  While con tools can go to their site, and see a list of talking points that tells them why they should believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii, which is a REALLY STUPID BELIEF, it is possible to get only one set of people to believe such drivel:  CONSERVATIVES.

And speaking of projection, cons have their talking points.   Tons of them.  And they believe them without question.  So they project that to progressives.  Assuming that they must be similarly brain dead to themselves.  Problem is, progressives are rational  (Look it up). And if you try to provide them talking points, they rebel.  Because they do not want to be told what to believe.  Because, again, they are rations.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Really, schmuko?
What happens to the "General Welfare" of the US when all our money goes to other nations?
Why do I even ask knowing you're too stupid to connect dots.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And why does it go to other nations? Because idiot liberal socialism has made it so costly to do business in the U.S., it has forced all of our jobs overseas. If we had made taxes, regulations, and labor laws lower here than they are in other nations, we would not only have 100% of American jobs here in the U.S. but we'd have probably 50% of the entire world's jobs from other nations here in the U.S. as well. Instead - liberal policy did what liberal policy always does - created unemployment and poverty.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You can easily replace "liberal" with "conservative".


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Like nobody EVER became immensely successful before Reagan.
You're arguments are vacuous.
Please start quoting some GDP statistics as I need a good laugh.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Conservative politicians aren't the one's out there preaching against the "evil" 1% genius and they don't pretend to want to redistribute wealth. They are very open in their belief of keeping what you earn. Epic fail my friend.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Of course they did. The further back in U.S. history you go, the less liberal policy we had forcing jobs overseas. In the 1700's and 1800's, there was no EPA creating illegal regulations costing hundreds of billions of dollars.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



So you're saying there are NO Conservative politicians.
Conservative declare that whoever works for them is not worth the pay they're getting and so they open the borders and order more Business Visas and off-shore to Totalitarian China.
You're very dull.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Fascinating...I the last 5 years I have asked contractors if they hate the EPA and not one said "Yes".


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


That doesn't send jobs overseas genius. That's just competition. Do you fear competition? Sadly, most liberals do. But what sends jobs overseas is government coercion creating an unfair playing field by making the cost of doing business in the U.S. exponentially higher than it is to do business in another country.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I'm sure they are all liberal idiots. How many business owners have you asked if they liked the EPA? _Exactly_...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Off-shoring is due to technology and being able to write off the expense.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Rules are created and enforced due to the occurrence of actual events.
How many Architects & Contractors have you actually ever had a conversation with?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Ad hominem...I win.
For the millionth time for the Conservative retards...
Off-shoring = Low Wages, Long Hours, Ability to abuse the workforce, no vacations and no pension.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



You know what else it means? *Jobs*. Only a liberal would rather have a no-wage job than a low-wage job 

And just yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. When a liberal goes shopping to spend their money, they shop for the best deal. What can they get the most for the least amount of money. But they think it's "unfair" for a business to do the same thing. Unbelievable. A very special kind of stupid that could only come from the left.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


that would be your opinion.  And you know how much we value your opinion.
Perhaps you would like to find an impartial link that shows that off shoreing means jobs to americans, me boy.  Then you can sit and wonder where the jobs are that are provided by off-shoring.  May be too difficult for you. 
Now, maybe we can talk about jobs for americans, in america.


----------



## Tehon (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


It's a shame Jefferson had not been a part of the constitutional convention, he may have been able to tighten up the language so as to leave no room for doubt. For as he acknowledged, and you carefully left out, the debate over the meaning was already raging during his lifetime and he was losing the debate.

"You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution which authorizes Congress "to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; *and this, you know, was the federal doctrine*. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, " - Thomas Jefferson (June 16, 1817)


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


What's your Annual Salary?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> For the millionth time for the Conservative retards...
> Off-shoring = Low Wages, Long Hours, Ability to abuse the workforce, no vacations and no pension.



For the *billionth* time for the _profoundly_ retarded liberals - here are the idiot liberal hypocrites advocating for policies so devastating to business, they ask to be ex,pets from the very policies they are advocating for. You can't make this stuff up. It can only come from the special insanity that is liberalism:

_Founded by Ralph Nader, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and its state-based member organizations have long been models of pro-regulation activism, campaigning for a bigger role for government in everything from financial markets to children’s toys. But on the expansion of overtime rules, they are firmly in the “no” camp.

In a statement released immediately after the Labor Department announced its action, Executive Director Andre Delattre *stated that the group “will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work*—all while the well-funded special interests that we’re up against will simply spend more.”_

Nader Advocacy Group Argues for Government to Regulate Others

Do you get that? They _admit_ that the polices they are begging government to force on the American people will end up with them providing fewer jobs and providing fewer hours for the people they do have. Yeah - not shit. It's basic business. Conservatives have been telling ignorant liberals this shit for over 100 years now. Nothing creates unemployment like liberals.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Enough. Why?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


You should leave your nursing home and visit Manhattan, the home of thousands of Limousine Liberals who buy ONLY THE BEST.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


As an attorney in a court room would state, "You brought up the issue, now I can ask questions."
I bet you're a "sit on your ass, do nothing" White Collar MBA.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


But we're *not* in a court room, you are *not* an attorney, and my salary is _personal_ info that is none of your business. That being said - I do not have a master's degree. I've spent my life working in IT and I make enough money to take care of my family but not enough to own my own private jet. Again...._why_? What does my salary have to do with _anything_?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> You should leave your nursing home and visit Manhattan, the home of *thousands of Limousine Liberals* who buy ONLY THE BEST.


So you acknowledge the despicable hypocrisy of liberals who all cry for socialism and then who hoard their wealth and drive in limousines while people starve? And you stand proudly with such disgusting hypocrites? Shame on you...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > You know what else it means? *Jobs*. Only a liberal would rather have a no-wage job than a low-wage job
> ...



Yeah - I said "the best deal". That doesn't mean the cheapest dumb-ass. Sometimes the best deal means spending the most money because you get the most quantity in return and/or the highest quality.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> I bet you're a "sit on your ass, do nothing" White Collar MBA.



By the way - nice job illustrating your bias and bigotry. Just because someone is "white collar" and has an "MBA" they sit on their ass all day and do nothing? I've seen some really horrible executives in my day. I've also seen some of the most hardest working, dedicated, relentless workers to be white collar people with master's degrees.

Leave it to a liberal to say something like "all blacks are stupid". Painting everyone with a broad brush like that is pure liberal ignorance.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Post 622, jackbrain...the Limousine Liberals I know BRAG about overpaying.
They're jackasses in their own way just like Conservatives are jackasses in their own way.
Really, a Limousine Liberal buying on the cheap?!  Nope!


----------



## Tehon (Jun 1, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Alexander Hamilton, who was at the constitutional convention, was also clear on the meaning of the general welfare clause.

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the _Common defence_ and _general welfare_" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be_uniform_ throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to _raise money_ is _plenary,_ and _indefinite;_ and the objects to which it may be _appropriated_ are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "_general Welfare_."  - Alexander Hamilton (Dec. 5, 1791)


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I've figured out why you're so angry all the time. Reading comprehension. You're obsessed with "cheap" because you don't understand what is written. You get a thought stuck in your head and your limited reading comprehension goes right off the tracks. Why don't you calm down, take a deep breath, and slowly read what is actually written?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


And I figured out why you love Globalism...You have an enormous pool of super cheap H1-Bs, don't cha?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I love "globalism"?!? That people on USMB that know me are going to be laughing _really_ hard at that one...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



If you're in IT you're barely holding on to a career and should WANT Trump.
If you're happy in IT and don't like Trump you're a Con tool.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Poor boy. If only you had the _slightest_ clue as to what was going on in the world - then maybe you wouldn't sound so childish.

Liberalism is sending jobs overseas at an alarming rate. You fear that, but you don't understand the cause of it, so you advocate for and support the very thing you fear.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 1, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> If you're in IT you're barely holding on to a career and should WANT Trump. If you're happy in IT and don't like Trump you're a Con tool.



If you're worried about losing jobs overseas - _you_ should want Trump. If you're unhappy about jobs going overseas and you like Hilldabeast, you're a typical liberal "useful idiot".

For the *billionth* time for the _profoundly_ retarded liberals - here are the idiot liberal hypocrites advocating for policies so devastating to business, they ask to be ex,pets from the very policies they are advocating for. You can't make this stuff up. It can only come from the special insanity that is liberalism:

_Founded by Ralph Nader, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and its state-based member organizations have long been models of pro-regulation activism, campaigning for a bigger role for government in everything from financial markets to children’s toys. But on the expansion of overtime rules, they are firmly in the “no” camp.

In a statement released immediately after the Labor Department announced its action, Executive Director Andre Delattre *stated that the group “will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work*—all while the well-funded special interests that we’re up against will simply spend more.”_

Nader Advocacy Group Argues for Government to Regulate Others

Do you get that? They _admit_ that the polices they are begging government to force on the American people will end up with them providing fewer jobs and providing fewer hours for the people they do have. Yeah - not shit. It's basic business. Conservatives have been telling ignorant liberals this shit for over 100 years now. Nothing creates unemployment like liberals.


----------



## regent (Jun 1, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > actually crashes:
> ...


That 1837 panic was the year that Jackson paid off the national debt. It seems the pay-off helped bring on the 1837 recession. Econ 102.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 1, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > actually crashes:
> ...



If you look seriously at how boom and bust worked, you have to look back before the end of the gold standard.  Since regulations seriously began after the great depression started, there have been few crashes in comparison with how things worked with the gold standard in place.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 1, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > If you're in IT you're barely holding on to a career and should WANT Trump. If you're happy in IT and don't like Trump you're a Con tool.



If you're worried about losing jobs overseas - _you_ should want Trump. If you're unhappy about jobs going overseas and you like Hilldabeast, you're a typical liberal "useful idiot".

For the *billionth* time for the _profoundly_ retarded liberals - here are the idiot liberal hypocrites advocating for policies so devastating to business, they ask to be ex,pets from the very policies they are advocating for. You can't make this stuff up. It can only come from the special insanity that is liberalism:

_Founded by Ralph Nader, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and its state-based member organizations have long been models of pro-regulation activism, campaigning for a bigger role for government in everything from financial markets to children’s toys. But on the expansion of overtime rules, they are firmly in the “no” camp.

In a statement released immediately after the Labor Department announced its action, Executive Director Andre Delattre *stated that the group “will be forced to hire fewer staff and limit the hours those staff can work*—all while the well-funded special interests that we’re up against will simply spend more.”_

Nader Advocacy Group Argues for Government to Regulate Others
*For the billionth time, dipshit, try to find an impartial site.  The daily signal does not pass the giggle test.*

Do you get that? They _admit_ that the polices they are begging government to force on the American people will end up with them providing fewer jobs and providing fewer hours for the people they do have. Yeah - not shit. It's basic business. Conservatives have been telling ignorant liberals this shit for over 100 years now. Nothing creates unemployment like liberals.

Funny.  A con tool finding an article on a Nader Advocacy Group, and suggests that it is a liberal group of some importance.  Jesus.  Next. 
What a surprise it must be to us all that the article, found by a con tool named Rottweiller, is from the *Daily Signal, *a far right bat shit crazy con web site.  Nice job of finding an unbiassed source, dipshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> What a surprise it must be to us all that the article, found by a con tool named Rottweiller, is from the *Daily Signal, *a far right bat shit crazy con web site.  Nice job of finding an unbiassed source, dipshit.



Same old tired nonsense from the liberal "useful idiot" Rshermr. What is "far right" _or_ "bat shit crazy" about the Daily Signal? If you're going to make wild accusations, you better be able to back them up. Please show us anything in the article that is not true.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Liberal policy flawlessly doing what liberal policy does. Turning low paying jobs into no paying jobs, spreading famine, poverty, and misery...

'We can't go on like this': Shortages, economic crisis make Venezuela a nation of lines


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > What a surprise it must be to us all that the article, found by a con tool named Rottweiller, is from the *Daily Signal, *a far right bat shit crazy con web site.  Nice job of finding an unbiassed source, dipshit.


Same old tired nonsense from the liberal "useful idiot" Rshermr. What is "far right" _or_ "bat shit crazy" about the Daily Signal? If you're going to make wild accusations, you better be able to back them up. Please show us anything in the article that is not true.

Using partial sources is hardly tired nonsense, at least from people with the ability to reason.  So, it is no surprise that you have no idea.  Like most con tools, me poor ignorant con, you spend your time in bat shit crazy con sites, and you proved it.  Dipshit.
Look up impartial source, me boy.  Just for an attempt at your general education.  I'm sure it will not take.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Liberal policy flawlessly doing what liberal policy does. Turning low paying jobs into no paying jobs, spreading famine, poverty, and misery...
> 
> 'We can't go on like this': Shortages, economic crisis make Venezuela a nation of lines



see, you can do it, dipshit.  Probably just blind luck.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Dude....you're so freaking retarded you don't even know how to respond to a comment in a thread. Every reply you make includes the other person's comments as if they were _yours_. No wonder you're a liberal...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Again....you're popping your mouth of with wild accusations but you're never able to back them up. You're not able to articulate what is "far right" nor are you able to cite anything inaccurate in the article. _Oops_....


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

More indisputable evidence of the failure that is the liberal ideology...

How many of the people who are demanding an increase in the minimum wage have ever bothered to check what actually happens when higher minimum wages are imposed? More often they just assume what is assumed by like-minded peers – with their assumptions being what “everybody knows.”

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16-17-year-old black males was under 10%. But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30% from 1971-94. In many of those years, the rate exceeded 40%, and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50%.

A little thinking debunks promises of socialism


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Only you, me poor ignorant tool, are confused.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> More indisputable evidence of the failure that is the liberal ideology...



How many of the people who are demanding an increase in the minimum wage have ever bothered to check what actually happens when higher minimum wages are imposed? More often they just assume what is assumed by like-minded peers – with their assumptions being what “everybody knows.”

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16-17-year-old black males was under 10%. But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30% from 1971-94. In many of those years, the rate exceeded 40%, and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50%.

A little thinking debunks promises of socialism

Wow.  You are, at least, consistent.  An article by Sowell.  I wonder if you know who he is.  Let me try to educate you again.  Sowell is a LIBERTARIAN phd economist.  If you know anything at all, you would know that he is therefor an economist paid and operated by the Koch bros.  Dipshit.
Sowell never saw a conservative idea that he did not like.  So, just to prove you do not like impartial sources, you bring out Sowell.  Excuse me, I need to laugh at you for a half hour or so.  Never saw anyone more ignorant than you. Dipshit.

Relative to if anyone ever checked what happened when min wage was started, me boy, congratulations.  It has been studied, and studied, and studied.  That you do not know that proves your ignorance. 
Try google, dipshit, and you will find over and over and over, from IMPARTIAL sources, that min wage has no long term effect on employment.  But if you ask Sowell, without knowing what he will say exactly, I would put a big bet down that he will tell you the opposite.  Cause, like you, he is not averse to lying.
Relative to unemployment among the black, there are a ton of studies out there to explain the variance,  If you look at the raw numbers, the ue rates are generally twice or slightly more than for whites, over many decades. And the explanations include several issues, NONE OF WHICH INCLUDE RAISES IN MINIMUM WAGE.   Nothing like Sowell states that I have ever seen.  But then Sowell is a agenda driven lier.  Like you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Again....you're popping your mouth of with wild accusations but you're never able to back them up. You're not able to articulate what is "far right" nor are you able to cite anything inaccurate in the article. _Oops_....

Since you are a congenital idiot, here are my comments in BLUE, dipshit.  With your drivel in black.
I can back anything up, but only the complete idiot would miss the fact that impartial sources are required to prove anything.  Fuckhead. Sorry, but it is hard for me to believe anyone could be as stupid as you claim you are.  Forget the sorry.
If you are really so stupid as not to know what far right is, there are two obvious (to rational people) ways to learn.  1.  Google it, dipshit.
           2. Go look in the mirror.
Ah, hell.  Since you are too stupid to use google, I will do it for you.  Takes less than a minute, dipshit:
"The *far right* or extreme *right* is a political label used to identify parties and movements based on fascist, racist and/or extremely reactionary ideologies. Officially those on the *far right* embrace the concept of the "inequality of outcome", meaning that one group is naturally better than another.Feb 10, 2016
*Far right - RationalWiki*
rationalwiki.org/wiki/*Far*_*right"
*
No one, me included, has any duty to read posts or links to partial sources.  Nor to take the time to disprove the drivel found in those sites with rational posts from impartial sources.  It is, though you will not do so, your responsibility to others to use impartial sources.  So as not to waste their time.  Wasting peoples time with drivel from agenda driven sites proves you are an ass hole.  Though everyone has learned that before


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Only you, *me poor ignorant tool*, are confused.



You've got that right! You _are_ a "poor ignorant tool". And your atrocious grammar simply goes to confirm that...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Still incapable of responding properly to a post I see. Perhaps you could get an adult to help you use a computer?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> No one, me included, has any duty to read posts or links to partial sources.  Nor to take the time to disprove the drivel found in those sites with rational posts from impartial sources. It is, though you will not do so, your responsibility to others to use impartial sources. So as not to waste their time.  Wasting peoples time with drivel from agenda driven sites proves you are an ass hole.  Though everyone has learned that before



First of all, I have no such responsibility you _ignorant_ fucking tool. Second, in your infinite ignorance, you're too fucking stupid to realize something obvious about your astoundingly stupid comment: who gets to decide what source is "impartial"? _You_? Bwahahahaha! Dumb ass.

Either _prove_ that the Daily Signal lied in the article or *shut the fuck up*. You're pissed off that you can't dispute anything in the article with facts.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you are really so stupid as not to know what far right is, there are two obvious (to rational people) ways to learn.  1.  Google it, dipshit.
> 2. Go look in the mirror.
> Ah, hell.  Since you are too stupid to use google, I will do it for you.  Takes less than a minute, dipshit:
> "The *far right* or extreme *right* is a political label used to identify parties and movements based on fascist, racist and/or extremely reactionary ideologies. Officially those on the *far right* embrace the concept of the "inequality of outcome", meaning that one group is naturally better than another.Feb 10, 2016
> ...



You continue to take stupid to a whole new level. I know what the "far right" is you ignorant tool. I asked you to prove that the *Daily Signal* was "far right". Here is the post so everyone can have a good laugh over how astoundingly ignorant you are...


Rottweiler said:


> Same old tired nonsense from the liberal "useful idiot" Rshermr. *What is "far right" *_*or*_* "bat shit crazy" about the Daily Signal?* If you're going to make wild accusations, you better be able to back them up. Please show us anything in the article that is not true.



But hey - what can we expect from someone who can't even simply reply to a comment properly without making it look like the other person's comments are part of your comments.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Relative to if anyone ever checked what happened when min wage was started, me boy, congratulations.  *It has been studied, and studied, and studied*.  That you do not know that proves your ignorance. Try google, dipshit, and you will find *over and over and over, from IMPARTIAL sources, that min wage has no long term effect on employment*.



How embarrassing for you. The facts (statistics in this case) _prove_ that you just make shit up:

Back in 1948, when inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage established a decade earlier, the unemployment rate among 16-17-year-old black males was under 10%. *But after the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation, the unemployment rate for black males that age was never under 30% from 1971-94. In many of those years, the rate exceeded 40%, and, for a couple of years, it exceeded 50%*.

A little thinking debunks promises of socialism


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> But then Sowell is a agenda driven *lier*.



We've established that you can't even reply to a comment properly. That websites and computers easily confuse you. That your grammar is _atrocious_. And now we can add illiteracy to the list. No wonder economics is too difficult for you to grasp since these basic items are above you.

It's spelled "*liar*" you ignorant tool.....


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

The failure of liberalism illustrated once again. Say this much for the failed ideology - it is consistent. Wherever they get government involved, costs _skyrocket_. Healthcare has gone through the roof since the government got involved in the late 1960's. The costs of doing business in America have skyrocketed with government regulations. And of course, college costs have skyrocketed as the government has thrown money around to every institution and everyone....

Some lawmakers are wondering whether threats to change the tax-exempt status of endowments might be used to persuade colleges *to bring down the cost of tuition, which has increased by 220% in real terms since 1980*.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...payments-yard-sale?trk=pulse-det-art_view_ext


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> The failure of liberalism illustrated once again. Say this much for the failed ideology - it is consistent. Wherever they get government involved, costs _skyrocket_. Healthcare has gone through the roof since the government got involved in the late 1960's. The costs of doing business in America have skyrocketed with government regulations. And of course, college costs have skyrocketed as the government has thrown money around to every institution and everyone....
> 
> Some lawmakers are wondering whether threats to change the tax-exempt status of endowments might be used to persuade colleges *to bring down the cost of tuition, which has increased by 220% in real terms since 1980*.
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/unite...payments-yard-sale?trk=pulse-det-art_view_ext



The US government was not involved in rising health care costs since the 1960's.  Except in the rattled minds of conservatives.  You see, insurance was private, with little regulation.  State regulations required coverage of a certain type.  But insurance corporations raised prices and profits all on their own.  Stupid accusation.
Health care costs for company plans rose by double digits during that time.  Next

The cost of doing business in america have not skyrocketed with gov regulation.  If you believe it has, you should find an independent source, with no agenda, and prove it.  But, here is the thing: regulations in business are a con tool talking point that cons are unable to prove.  Just charges.  
"During Obama’s first two years in office, 555 new “significant” regulations, or ones that have a cost or benefit of at least $100 million in a year, have been enacted, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Over the eight years that former president George W. Bush was in office about 2,380 regulations were enacted, an average of 595 every two years.

“But what are the potential benefits?” Schultz continued.  ”If you issue regulations limiting the use of, say, certain kinds of coal, the air pollution is something [companies] don’t pay for.  The trick is to balance off those things like pollution with the costs of running a company.”"
"But despite cries that American businesses are over-regulated and over-burdened, t*he United States still ranks as one of the best countries to start a business. Worldwide, only Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have a more business friendly environment, according to the 2010 International Finance Corporation and World Bank “Doing Business”"*
*Are American Businesses Unduly Burdened?*
*So, me boy, do you ever do anything except post conservative talking points?*


----------



## Jomama (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr, your point is proven that Bush was no conservative either based on his regulations and many other things.

What's more important is enforcement.   20 years ago we had enough regulations to choke businesses, the key is how they are enforced - enforcing to the benefit of society not detriment.   And how do we regulate our regulators?  

Personally I experienced the EPA stage a midnight raid on a company which resulted in the customers being scared off and leaving within 4 months.  All of these customers had been with the business for over 10 years.   The EPA could have called or visited, they were chasing a inaccurate lead.   But they wanted to wear their Federal Agent jackets, wanted news crews and wanted to wear their holster.   And 165 jobs were lost.  And these asshole regulators went back to their fat govt pension jobs.  

This is not a political point but it never gets solved because simpletons keep thinking it's a Repub/Dem issue.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Jomama said:


> Rshermr, your point is proven that Bush was no conservative either based on his regulations and many other things.
> 
> What's more important is enforcement.   20 years ago we had enough regulations to choke businesses, the key is how they are enforced - enforcing to the benefit of society not detriment.   And how do we regulate our regulators?
> 
> ...



Every opportunity republican politicians have, they name two issues as holding back the economy in this country.  One being high taxes, the other being too much gov regulation.  But independent studies say our regulations in this country are less than in other countries.  And that gov regulation has nothing to do with economic recovery.  So, I see it as a completely partisan issue.
I do not disagree that there are over reaches in gov regulation, like your example.  But our economy is extremely large, and point problems tend to have no impact on the economy.  On people, yes.  Need to be addressed, yes.  But they are not issues that control the economy in any way.
We just went through the worst recession since the 1929 depression.  The 2008 Great Recession was, per pretty much every economist, an aggregate demand recession.  A huge one.  And it may well have gone to depression should we not have addressed the demand issue.  Republicans demanded tax decreases.  They helped a little, but not much (per the cbo).  So, you saw republicans block every attempt at stimulus designed to increase aggregate demand.  Which by all accounts greatly slowed recovery.
So, in my humble opinion, over regulation is indeed a partisan political issue.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The US government was not involved in rising health care costs since the 1960's.  Except in the rattled minds of conservatives.  You see, insurance was private, with little regulation.



You see....Medicare and Medicaid was passed into *law* in *1965* dumb ass. Thus began the skyrocketing of the healthcare costs as the customers (the elderly and the poor) were no longer paying for their services. Since the customer wasn't paying, there was no reason for the physician/hospital/etc. to attempt to keep prices down and affordable. The problem only continued to grow much worse when Tip O'Neil and the Dumbocrats passed a law in the 1980's forcing hospitals to provide care for people even when they weren't insured. That was a devastating cost to hospitals. How do they cover the cost of providing open heart surgery to a person rushed into the ER without insurance? They charge everyone else $30 for a single aspirin and $60,000 for a surgery to help cover those costs.

This is all basic stuff. But I'm not the least bit surprised that you're confused by all of it. I'm not the least bit surprised that you had no idea that Medicare and Medicaid were passed into law in 1965. I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't understand business. You've demonstrated your extraordinary ignorance over and over already. You never add a link or fact. You never back up any of your ignorant statements. All you do is post your incredibly ignorant, incredibly uninformed ideologue _opinions_.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Every opportunity republican politicians have, they name two issues as holding back the economy in this country.  One being high taxes, the other being too much gov regulation.



Which is more than can be said for the Dumbocrats. For over 100 years now - they have offered one solution and one solution _only_. Their only idea in the entire history of their party has been "let government control it". How can a party exist for over 100 years and not come up with a second idea in its entire history.

They felt healthcare costs were too high - they demanded government control it.

They felt wages were too low - they demanded government control it.

They felt people needed to be fed - they demanded government control it.

They felt there was too much pollution - they demanded government control it.

They felt there wasn't enough access to abortion - they demanded government control it.

Over 100 years and one single freaking idea from this failed ideology and the "useful idiots" that support it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Every opportunity republican politicians have, they name two issues as holding back the economy in this country.  One being high taxes, the other being too much gov regulation.



Which is more than can be said for the Dumbocrats. For over 100 years now - they have offered one solution and one solution _only_. Their only idea in the entire history of their party has been "let government control it". How can a party exist for over 100 years and not come up with a second idea in its entire history.
Hardly.  The democratic solutions are multiple.  For cons, there are exactly two.  Cut taxes and eliminate regs.

They felt healthcare costs were too high - they demanded government control it.
We had almost twice the cost of the second highest country in the world for health care, but cons loved it.

They felt wages were too low - they demanded government control it.
We had extreme low wages that did not let working people live, so raised it some, and the cons hate it.

They felt people needed to be fed - they demanded government control it.
That is just plain untrue, except when people can not afford to eat.  Cons would rather that they starve.

They felt there was too much pollution - they demanded government control it.
They set standards that allowed people to breath and drink the water.  Now they can do so, but cons hate it.

They felt there wasn't enough access to abortion - they demanded government control it.
And dems feel that abortion should be rare and safe, while cons feel that abortion should be prosecuted.  We had that before, it simply meant more people died, and cons loved it.

Over 100 years and one single freaking idea from this failed ideology and the "useful idiots" that support it.
That would be the opinion of a con tool.  And  you know how much we value his opinion.

Nice set of talking points.  Untrue, but it is a good job of cut and paste.  But cons did give us three records.  The first, second, and third biggest recessions in the past 100 years.  
Oh, and they have provided some of the most ignorant people also, like Rottweiler!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> We had almost twice the cost of the second highest country in the world for health care, but cons loved it.



Yeah...and the only question is...why wouldn't libtards want it to go higher? You get what you pay for. Do you want the Lamborghini of healthcare (as we use to have) or do you want the Yugo of healthcare (as other nations have and we are heading towards). Leave it to libtards to lower the bar and bring us down to the level of "other" nations. Those other nations are second to us for a reason. The goal should be to keep it that way.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> > Rshermr said:
> >
> >
> > > Every opportunity republican politicians have, they name two issues as holding back the economy in this country.  One being high taxes, the other being too much gov regulation.
> ...


Really? They are? Then how come you can't name them? Over 100 years of liberalism and just ONE "solution" - let government control it. I love how you make outrageous claims like that and don't even attempt to back it up. Most liberals just lie on USMB. You're too lazy to do that.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> > Rshermr said:
> >
> >
> > > Every opportunity republican politicians have, they name two issues as holding back the economy in this country.  One being high taxes, the other being too much gov regulation.
> ...


 You continue to take stupid to a whole new level. "That's just plain untrue....except when it's true". 

Jack-ass....that's what we're talking about. When people cannot (one word by the way idiot) afford to eat. And conservatives would not rather anyone starve. That's a weak and sad straw man by you libtards who can't justify you're greed and your violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Conservatives would rather see greedy people like _you_ feed the hungry. Conservatives would rather see people stand on their own two feet. Conservatives would rather protect and defend the highest law in the land rather than surrender it simply because someone is "hungry".


----------



## P@triot (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> But cons did give us three records.  The first, second, and third biggest recessions in the past 100 years.
> Oh, and they have provided some of the most ignorant people also, like Rottweiler!



Who over saw the Great Depression? Dumbocrat FDR. Who oversaw the Great Recession? Jimmy Carter. Who over saw the third worst economy in U.S. history? Barack Obama. Those are the facts junior. _Oops_.....


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Rottweiler said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > But cons did give us three records.  The first, second, and third biggest recessions in the past 100 years.
> > Oh, and they have provided some of the most ignorant people also, like Rottweiler!



Who over saw the Great Depression? Dumbocrat FDR. Who oversaw the Great Recession? Jimmy Carter. Who over saw the third worst economy in U.S. history? Barack Obama. Those are the facts junior. _Oops_.....

Does it hurt, me boy, to be as stupid as you are.  Lets take your ignorant comments one at a time.
1. the great depression of 1929 was created and went on for four years before fdr took it over, going from under 4% unemployment to over 25% unemployment.  Since it happened under republican presidents Coolidge (till March of 1929) and Hoover.  Complete with republican congresses.  Dipshit.  Normally people take responsibility for their screw ups, but not republicans or con tools.  
2.  Then you have no clue, apparently, of when the great recession of Ronald Reagan happened.  He took over the country with an only mediocre economy, 7.4% ue.  Which, me poor ignorant con, does not qualify as a recession.  But he passed policies after inaugurated that brought the ue rate up to 10.8%, second highest in history.  
3.  The third deepest recession, and second most dangerous, was created by republicans, and fixed by obama.  The ue rate went to 10%, we were loosing jobs at over 500,000 per month, and were in great danger of falling into a depression.  But yes, you can thank Obama for fixing that, and you can thank the republicans for not bringing a single bill forward to help the situation.
Really, it must hurt to be as stupid as you are.


----------



## Jomama (Jun 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, in my humble opinion, over regulation is indeed a partisan political issue.



It seems you see everything as a partisan political issue.  I'm nothing more than an entrepreneur and employer and I think politicians are obstacles to progress and mostly assholes so I dont waste any time thinking about them.  I just focus on what I can control.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 2, 2016)

Jomama said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, in my humble opinion, over regulation is indeed a partisan political issue.
> ...


And that is your absolute right.  But others of us, retired and out of the daily fight, tend to look at this countries politics and say something needs to happen for the good of future generations.  And in my humble but correct opinion, the problem we have is money in politics.  Too many politicians helping wealthy corporations or individuals who can afford to pay to get what they want.  While you are thinking about the subject of politics, we all need to consider what our country looks like if we allow the wealthy to determine what happens.  It is, without question, not what most of our founding fathers think we should have.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Jomama said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Yeah...because it makes so much more sense to allow the poor, ignorant, and failed (such as yourself) to determine what happens. Idiot.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

"Contrary to a popular impression, profits are achieved not by raising prices, but by introducing economies and efficiencies that cut costs of production." - Henry Hazlitt


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


No amount of whishing that something were true makes it true. FDR oversaw the Great Depresison. Jimmy Carter oversaw the Great Recession (the economy was _incredible_ by the time Ronald Reagan left office thanks to his policies), and Barack Obama oversaw the third worst economy in U.S. history. Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> "Contrary to a popular impression, profits are achieved not by raising prices, but by introducing economies and efficiencies that cut costs of production." - Henry Hazlitt


Obviously.  As any first quarter economics student knows.  Did you think that you had found a complex statement?  Jesus, you are ignorant.  And stupid.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Jomama said:
> ...


So, are you saying that we should allow the stupid, like yourself, to have more control?  Dipshit.  
We now have your opinion.  The opinion of  a congenital idiot.  Thanks for that.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


No amount of whishing that something were true makes it true.  I agree (though I am not sure what whishing is. Perhaps you meant wishing.)   FDR oversaw the Great Depresison. (It was a depression, not a depresison)  Now, facts are quite different.  The great depression was repaired by policies of FDR.  The only "overseeing" of the great Depression of 1929 was done by republican presidents, who watched the ue rate jump from 4 to 25%. . the great depression of 1929 was created and went on for four years before fdr took it over, going from under 4% unemployment to over 25% unemployment when he took office in March of 1933..  Since it happened under republican presidents Coolidge (till March of 1929) and Hoover.  Complete with republican congresses.  Dipshit.  Normally people take responsibility for their screw ups, but not republicans or con tools. 
  Jimmy Carter oversaw the Great Recession (the economy was _incredible_ by the time Ronald Reagan left office thanks to his policies),There was, me poor ignorant tool, no great recession during Carter's term.  No unemployment rate during his term higher than 7.5%.  Which was where it was in January of 1981 as Reagan was sworn in to the presidency.  You should really get a basic understanding of economic history before making comments.  Not doing so makes you look stupid:
*"Great Recession in the United States*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following the bursting of the housing bubble in mid-2007, the United States entered a severe recession. The United States entered 2008 during a housing market correction and a subprime mortgage crisis.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) *dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. *According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%, making the Great Recession the worst since the Great Depression. *Unemployment rose from 4.7% in November 2007 to peak at 10% in October of 2009.*[1]"

I put the information about when the Great Recession, or the Great Republican Recession of 2008, occurred,  Because it is important to know at least the basics of economic history before you say something.  Not doing so allows people to see how ignorant you are.


and Barack Obama oversaw the third worst economy in U.S. history.   Barack Obama inherited and eliminated the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  See above.  When he took office in January of 2008, the nation was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  And the ue rate was going up like a rocket.  By 2009, the ue rate (for your etification, ue means unemployment) was dropping and the depression was declared over in 2009.  See above in red, me boy.

Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.
Sorry, me boy.  What you presented are not the facts.  You see, facts are facts not what you want them to be.  What you stated are, rather, untruths.  Either you are significantly brain impaired or you are simply lying.  So, again: 
1. The Great Depression, worst unemployment in the past century, occurred in 1929 under Republican President Herbert Hoover.  Before a dem took office, the ue rate was 25%.
2.  The Reagan Recession occurred in 1982.  Second highest ue rate in history, at 10.8%.  Created and managed during reagan.s term, with a ue rate of 10.8%.
3.  The Great Recession of 2008 began in November of 2007.  By the time Obama took office, we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per *month.*  Obama managed and ended the recession with no help from the Republican congress, which became known as the "Do Nothing Congress".
Let me know, by again posting lies, when you need economic lessons.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The great depression was repaired by policies of FDR.



Indisputable proof that you are an idiot with no clue what you are talking about. Even left-wing UCLA admits that FDR's policies drastically extended the Great Depression instead of "repairing" it. You're an uninformed partisan hack.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409


----------



## regent (Jun 4, 2016)

Of course, how simple it was in the old days, just wait out a depression. Hoover sort of waited it out for four years and the American people were getting restless. Even some governments were overturned.
When FDR ran for office, he said he would not wait it out, he would experiment, try things and the people elected him, and try things is what he did. True, not everything worked, but the people knew he was trying. The people elected FDR four times in a row, historians have named FDR, America's greatest president.
Would the American people today wait four years, with hungry kids going through garbage cans, no health care, no jobs waiting for a Great Depression to cure itself or would they demand the government do something?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

regent said:


> Of course, how simple it was in the old days, just wait out a depression. Hoover sort of waited it out for four years and the American people were getting restless. Even some governments were overturned.
> When FDR ran for office, he said he would not wait it out, he would experiment, try things and the people elected him, and try things is what he did. True, not everything worked, but the people knew he was trying. The people elected FDR four times in a row, historians have named FDR, America's greatest president.
> Would the American people today wait four years, with hungry kids going through garbage cans, no health care, no jobs waiting for a Great Depression to cure itself or would they demand the government do something?


That is a whole lot of nonsense. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and "trying stuff" to end a depression is *not* one of them. So the fire thing you just did with your post was establish that FDR was a dirt-bag who violated the U.S. Constitution in a huge way.

Second, mentioning that FDR was elected four times only goes to further prove what a dirt-bag the guy was. Any sitting president in history would've been elected over and over and over simply on name recognition and reverence due to the office alone. But George Washington set the tone as the first president of the United States when he refused to run a third time. Subsequently, _every_ president that followed his precedence and respected that gesture. Until the power-hungry idiot FDR.

Finally, history has proven that nothing he did worked. He created and prolonged the Great Depression with his unconstitutional policies.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Gee...."shocking" results. Nobody would've seen this coming 




 

Best-run States Are Heavily Republican, Study Finds


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Gee...."shocking" results. Nobody would've seen this coming
> 
> View attachment 77067
> 
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Gee...."shocking" results. Nobody would've seen this coming
> ...



Hahahaha! One small problem junior....this wasn't from Glenn Beck. If you had clicked the link and read the story properly you would've seen that Glenn was simply reporting on the story that was from Investors.com. _Oops_....

Thank you for illustrating to everyone how ignorant, lazy, and partisan you are. Here is the link that Glenn had in his story: Best-Run States Are Heavily Republican, Study Finds


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Gee...."shocking" results. Nobody would've seen this coming
> ...



By the way - could you email the USMB admins and ask them to train you on how to use a computer and how to respond to a comment? You're the only idiot I know that can't hit "reply" without mucking it up so bad. No wonder you want government to take care of you.


----------



## regent (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, how simple it was in the old days, just wait out a depression. Hoover sort of waited it out for four years and the American people were getting restless. Even some governments were overturned.
> ...





P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, how simple it was in the old days, just wait out a depression. Hoover sort of waited it out for four years and the American people were getting restless. Even some governments were overturned.
> ...


How did history proved nothing FDR worked? It is the best historians in the nation that named FDR the greatest American president.
If FDR violated the Constitution he could be called on it and was. FDR did many things that worked, to name just one, Social Security. As for running for a third term if the people believed that to be wrong the people didn't have to vote for him, but they did, and then for still another term.  FDR ran and the people voted so what did they violate-a gesture by Washington, did the people have that right?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


OMG!  A Free Market site touts a Free Market?  No WAY!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 4, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



FDR BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!
Same old CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation Bullshit.
That's why I know an endless array of Republicans in their 70s who said they would have starved to death if not for FDR.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

regent said:


> How did history proved nothing FDR worked?



Even left-wing UCLA acknowledges that FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression by almost a decade. They did a complete study and issued a report on it:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/misguided-government-policies-80595



regent said:


> It is the best historians in the nation that named FDR the greatest American president.



They didn't. At all. A few radical left-winger with agenda have nominated him as such. But nobody else has. In fact, most true historians have Ronald Reagan above FDR. Here they have both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln above FDR:

New ranking of U.S. presidents puts Lincoln at No. 1, Obama at 18; Kennedy judged most overrated



regent said:


> If FDR violated the Constitution he could be called on it and was. FDR did many things that worked, to name just one, Social Security.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. First you say "if" FDR violated the U.S. Constitution (implying that he didn't) and then you follow that up with "he could be called on it and was" (implying that he _did_). I'm going to assume that you meant to say "wasn't" there. And what is ironic is that in your very next sentence, you prove that he violated the U.S. Constitution. The federal government has zero authority to create something like Social Security. They have 18 enumerated powers delegated to them by the states in the Constitution and creating _anything_ "social" isn't among them. Hence, that is a direct and egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution.



regent said:


> As for running for a third term if the people believed that to be wrong the people didn't have to vote for him, but they did, and then for still another term.  FDR ran and the people voted so what did they violate-a gesture by Washington, did the people have that right?



The people had the right to vote for anyone on the ballot. That doesn't change the fact that FDR was a dirt-bag power-hungry mongrel who violated everything this country was built on when he refused to follow the precedence set by George Washington and _voluntarily_ step down after two terms. Why do you think we have a mandatory legal two term limit now? Because of FDR. The moment he died, Congress went out and passed that law to ensure a power-hungry dictator like him would never exist again.

The people didn't vote for FDR because they liked him. They voted for him because they didn't know any better. They see the face in the papers, they hear the name and voice on the radio, they support their president like good patriots  and - boom! He's in for life not matter how shitty a job he's doing because people know the name and they don't know the name of the other candidate. It's a simple reality that even the founders recognized:

"Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will *always* be *re-elected* if he may be re-elected. He is then an officer for life." - Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison on December 20, 1787).

It's simply name recognition and nothing more. Thomas Jefferson recognized this as far back as 1787 when the republic was but a fledgling experiment. How is it that you don't recognize that more than 200 years later? Have you not learned from history? Do you not study it?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 4, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Really? You know (and I quote) "an endless array" or Republican's who said they would've starved to death? So that equals in real numbers - what - half a dozen people? At most? Well, the unrestrained government of the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin saw tens of millions intentionally starved to death. So....any rational person (that immediately excludes you) would conclude that it is better to have a free nation that sees a few dozen starve because of their incompetence than a nanny state that intentionally starves tens of millions.

Incidentally - how incompetent were these people that they couldn't even feed themselves without FDR? What moron doesn't know how to plant a garden? What idiot can't kill a deer or other wild animal for a meal? God Almighty...


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 4, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



So the idiot P@triot is comparing the early 20th Century to today.
Are you seriously that stupid?
Yes, you are.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Bwahahahaha! People didn't know how to plant a garden or hunt in the early 20th Century? I would submit that everyone knew exponentially better how to back then than they do today. Oh wait....you're an idiot libtard. Which means you're completely ignorant of history. And facts. And reality.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 5, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Please elaborate on these features of life in the early 20th century...
The number of hours per work day.
The number of hours per work week.
Environmental control in factories.
Health care.
Number of Sick Days.
Vacations.
Worker's rights when they didn't get paid; you may include the business owner calling in the National Guard to main and kill workers.
Relocation opportunity.
Refrigeration.
Working outside regardless of weather.
How many men died building Bridges?
How many men died building Tunnels?
How many men died building Roads?

Wasn't the pre-FDR, Robber Baron scumbag era just dandy?.

Feeling stupid yet?
Of course not, because you're too stupid to realize you're stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 5, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And what does _any_ of that have to do with being able to feed themselves?!? Would you like to try again junior? This time without the nonsensical redirect to items that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?

When you get your ass kicked with logic, you just go off on a tangent about items that have nothing to do with the issue.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 5, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So everybody had a house with a backyard to plant some fruits and vegetables?
Oh, I see, the men who built the city you live in should have just been happy eating at a slop kitchen.
What nursing home are you in?
Or are you seriously that out of touch with history?


----------



## regent (Jun 5, 2016)

Since 1948 FDR has been rated by America's most noted historians as one of the top three American presidents, and recently as the number one. Conservative historians still rated FDR in the top three. As for FDR welfare, if you were able-you worked. For the kids on the road FDR implemented the CCC, a 3C got thirty a month and sent home 25.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

regent said:


> Since 1948 FDR has been rated by America's most noted historians as one of the top three American presidents, and recently as the number one. Conservative historians still rated FDR in the top three. As for FDR welfare, if you were able-you worked. For the kids on the road FDR implemented the CCC, a 3C got thirty a month and sent home 25.



Yes.  But the cons liked it best when the working class was broke and starving.  Cause it just makes them happy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 5, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Wasn't the pre-FDR, Robber Baron scumbag era just dandy?.



it was fastest period of economic growth in history history!!

From: The Myth of The Robber Barrons by Forest McDonald


Edward Collins  $33,000 per Atlantic crossing (page 7)
Cornelius Vanderbilt (robber barron)  $15,000  per Atlantic crossing

Collins    $600 NY to California
Vanderbilt (robber barron)  150  NY to California( page 12) 


"James J Hill cut freight costs from 90 cents to 44 cents a pound" (page 34) and still made a profit while the heavily subsidized Union Pacific and Central Pacific always lost money

"Coopers charged 2.50 per barrel Rockefeller cut his to $.96" (Page 86)

"From 1865 to 1870, the price of kerosene dropped from 58 to 26 cents per gallon,
Rockefeller made profits during everyone of these years" (page 87)

"Before 1870, only the rich could afford whale oil and candles, The rest had to go to bed to save money. By 1870 with the drop in the price of Kerosene, the middle and working class people all over the nation could afford the one cent an hour that it cost to light their homes at night".( page 87)

"When Andrew Carnegie entered steel production in 1872, England dominated world production and the price of steel production was $56 per ton. By 1900 Carnegie Steel was manufacturing steel for $11.00 per ton and out stripping the entire production of England!" (page 126)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> 1. The Great Depression, worst unemployment in the past century, occurred in 1929 under Republican President Herbert Hoover..



it also occured under uber-liberal interventionist Federal Reserve system that allowed money supply to shrink by 34% to cause Depression. Most half-way literate people know this!! Rshmer skipped college and we can see what an expert that made him on economic matters. Pathetic.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The Great Depression, worst unemployment in the past century, occurred in 1929 under Republican President Herbert Hoover..
> ...


Funny how a great depression which occurred with republican presidents and a republican congress gets blamed on democrats by republicans.  Now, the attempt is both obvious, and impossible.  It was, of course, the republican great depression.  As all know.  And it shows that cons have no class or integrity.  But they are funny.
Talking of college, me boy, coming from a person who could not get into one, seems a bit shallow.  Don't  you think?  
You are, however, now a famous person.  Known by all as a conservative troll.


----------



## regent (Jun 6, 2016)

In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> Since 1948 FDR has been rated by America's most noted historians as one of the top three American presidents, and recently as the number one. Conservative historians still rated FDR in the top three. As for FDR welfare, if you were able-you worked. For the kids on the road FDR implemented the CCC, a 3C got thirty a month and sent home 25.


First of all, I already proved that wrong. Second - overwhelmingly Ronald Reagan is rated as a top 3 president all time, including by left-wingers. So what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Reagan's policies were polar opposite of FDR's.

Second, the rest of your post is nonsensical. You asked me to prove that FDR engaged in unconstitutional behavior. I proved it. Now you attempt to move the goalposts and claim that his policies worked. I already proved they didn't with the left-wing UCLA study which indicated his policies prolonged the Great Depression.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter one damn bit what you think of his policies. They were a tremendous failure. And even if they weren't, they were unconstitutional. Which makes them illegal. Which makes FDR a massive dirt-bag.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy.



*In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases*

What wealth do you feel increases in a depression? Any specifics?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Funny how a great depression which occurred with republican presidents and a republican congress gets blamed on democrats by republicans.  .



Actually it gets blamed on huge liberal intervention in the economy not on Republicans and Democrats since liberals infected both parties then. You have to be one step above total illiteracy not to know that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy.



of course that's 100% mistaken. You get wealthy by selling iphones to everyone. When your customers get poor so do you.



The number of new US millionaires fell following the financial crisis. At the end of 2011 there were just over 5.1m millionaires in the United States – 165,360 fewer than in 2007, before Obama's election and the worst of the financial crisis. The recent rise in stock markets and signs of a recovery in real estate mean the number of millionaires will be back to pre-recession levels by the end of 2012.




However, their wealth will remain below 2007 levels until the end of 2013. In 2007, high-net-worth individuals' total wealth was about $20tn; WealthInsight forecasts that at the end of 2012 the number will be fractionally lower, at $19.9tn

There Are A Million New Millionaires In The US Since Obama Took Office


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy.
> ...



Yeah, their mansions, their jets, their wives, their boozing and coke snorting, their ability to attend BBQs and Banquets and buy ever more influence over our Government.
Any examples of how MNC Directors suffered from a Depression?
And don't give me a list of 10 out of several hundred.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Their mansions and jets increase in value during a depression?

*Any examples of how MNC Directors suffered from a Depression?
*
What's MNC?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Multi-National Corporation.
I thought you worked on Wall Street?
When others lose what they have, those who retain what they have, and even expand on what they have, have acquired greater value compared to others.
Please provide me with a list of MNC Directors who didn't buy a new estate after a crash...you see, two can play at the vacuous bullshit question game.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



How did the bank bigwigs, for example, benefit when their stock positions tanked?

*When others lose what they have, those who retain what they have, and even expand on what they have, have acquired greater value compared to others.
*
Wealthy people own a lot of stock. Did they benefit when the S&P dropped 50%?
Did they benefit when the stocks they owned cut their dividends?
Did that help them retain what they have?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



See my prior post.
If you can't figure out how Directors always retain the status quo, I suggest asking the nurses at the Nursing Home to put more Iron supplements into your farina.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I saw your prior post. Still waiting for an answer that makes sense.

What wealth do you feel increases in a depression? Any specifics?


----------



## regent (Jun 6, 2016)

Money wealth. Not stocks, not property but plain old money wealth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> Money wealth. Not stocks, not property but plain old money wealth.



Right, rich guys benefit when the interest paid on their cash goes down.


----------



## regent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Money wealth. Not stocks, not property but plain old money wealth.
> ...


So what are they paying today? In a depression the money wealth gains more with lower prices. Does money lose value with inflation or deflation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

regent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



*In a depression the money wealth gains more with lower prices.
*
Yeah, if you have a pile of cash, you can benefit from lower prices.
Most rich people don't have a large percentage of their wealth in cash.
They're leveraged, to buy assets. Assets that lose value in a depression.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You no longer get to bullshit on this forum.
If you have 100 like everyone else and then everyone else has 25, your 100 have become more valuable.
Not to mention that most Directors know what's going to happen months before it happens and so make contingencies to cash in on economic slumps.
You know, like how Warren Buffet made a fortune from the 2008 crash that he caused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*If you have 100 like everyone else and then everyone else has 25, your 100 have become more valuable.*

What the fuck are you mumbling about now?

*Not to mention that most Directors know what's going to happen months before it happens and so make contingencies to cash in on economic slumps.*

How'd that work out for Dick Fuld and Jimmy Cayne? Durr.

*You know, like how Warren Buffet made a fortune from the 2008 crash that he caused.*

He's a liberal twat, but he didn't cause the 2008 crash.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I KNEW you were going to mention Fuld...one of only SEVEN CEOs to pay for that they did.

Warren Buffet DID cause the crash.
I'll have to wait to talk to my friend from Goldman-Sachs about the details.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



*I KNEW you were going to mention Fuld...
*
He wasn't a Director who knew months ahead of time, he was the fucking CEO, why didn't he know years ahead of time? Why didn't Jimmy Cayne? All the Bear Stearns Directors? LOL!

What about every other CEO or officer that held stock in their firm?
They all lost money when their stocks tanked.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Exactly!  Fuld was a CEO and I said "Directors"!
So WHY did you post FULD?
I was waiting for you to post vacuous bullshit and you DID!
And I even let you slip on that because I'm a nice guy.
And you know full well why Bear-Stearns was, as my friend says, assassinated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



CEOs know less than Directors? LOL!

Sure thing.

Who knew more, Sam Nunn, Bill Frist, Henry Kissinger and William Perry or Elizabeth Holmes?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



CEOs are paid to take the kick in the ass when things go awry.
Eliot Spitzer would only go after CEOs, never Directors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Because most Directors are lackeys, not clairvoyant Masters of the Universe.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yawn...I admire you for admitting you hit a dead end.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Let me know when you figure out what wealth increases in a depression.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I promise you I'll let you when a Director who's still making 50 million a year after a crash can buy a bunch of foreclosed homes.
Still haven't caught on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Derp.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Con tool response.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Based on your liberal idiocy, it was a perfect response.

During a depression, a rich guy's stock tanks, the value of his mansion tanks and the interest he might earn on his cash also tanks.

It's safe to say that rich guys really don't hope for a depression.
Feel free to post statements from rich guys who claim they do.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Provide a list of MNC Directors who lost their fortunes in the last two crashes.
I'll wait.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I don't have a list of directors who made or lost money.
If you think such a list will prove your silly claim, you should start compiling.

I'll be around, laughing at your silliness. Feel free to ping me. I'll wait.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope.
YOUR game of NEVER providing proof of anything to ANYONE comes to an end.
Put or shut up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I'm not trying to prove anything, just pointing out the idiocy of the claim that rich
guys love depressions.

Buffett probably didn't sell any of his shares at the bottom, but to claim he benefits, or celebrates, when his stock drops 40% is beyond moronic. Not beyond you though. Derp.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And yet another FACT PACKED posting by the Con Tool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



More liberal derp!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 9, 2016)

Pay attention liberals. This is Economics 101 and Business Fundamentals all in one...

Why are so many workers struggling today?

Some union-backed analysts have a straightforward answer: “Their employers are cheating them.” They claim businesses no longer compensate workers for their productivity. This argument demonstrates H.L. Mencken’s point that “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and *wrong*.”

Competition forces employers to base pay on productivity. Firms that consistently pay workers *more* than they produce go out of business, as Bethlehem Steel famously demonstrated. But firms that *underpay* their employees* also don’t last* long.

Imagine a firm that tried paying some employees just half of what they produce. A competitor could reap large profits by hiring away those productive workers for slightly more. But then another competitor would offer even higher pay. Competition quickly bids up workers’ pay to their productivity level. To keep good employees, businesses must pay them commensurately with their productivity.

This explains why over 95% of Americans make more than the minimum wage. Federal law does not require employers to pay above $7.25 an hour. Economic laws do. A company that wants a quality workforce has to pay for it.

JAMES SHERK: Simple — and wrong — solutions in search for higher wages


----------



## P@triot (Jun 9, 2016)

Liberal policy *never* works. It _always_ ends in poverty and misery...

Venezuela's Crisis Is the Latest Example of Why Socialism Doesn't Work


----------



## P@triot (Jun 9, 2016)

Liberal policy *never* works. It _always_ ends in poverty and misery...

Stratos Ramoglou writes at Business Insider, *the root causes of the Greek debt crisis were public spending on a “bloated and dysfunctional public sector”* that served mainly political clientelism and cronyism, along with the aftershocks of the 2008 global financial crisis on the, “poorly designed European monetary union. It was an accident waiting to happen … ”

Europe Rolls Over on Greek Debt (Again), With No Reforms


----------



## regent (Jun 11, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Liberal policy *never* works. It _always_ ends in poverty and misery...
> 
> Venezuela's Crisis Is the Latest Example of Why Socialism Doesn't Work


Are you saying that socialism must be mixed with capitalism as in the USA to work?


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy.
> ...



If I recall my history, thousands of the very wealthy were jumping out of buildings.  Not seeing how that's an "enormous benefit" for them. Just call me skeptical about that whole "enormous benefits" thingy.


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



IF, as you claim, "MOST DIRECTORS" know what's going to happen months before it happens, why don't they make changes?

How many in the country are as wealthy and diversified as Warren Buffet?  Specifically how much did he make in 2008...above what he would have made without the recession?


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal policy *never* works. It _always_ ends in poverty and misery...
> ...



Do you know the definition of Socialism?  The military, police and fire protection is NOT Socialism.


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I take it that you are aware that the directors of any corporation actually make very few decisions.  Especially with very large corporations they are honorary positions.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 11, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal policy *never* works. It _always_ ends in poverty and misery...
> ...


I'm saying what everybody already knows - that liberal policy is dragging down the U.S. and that we would already be Venezuela/Cuba/Cambodia/etc. if not for conservative policy keeping us propped up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*I take it that you are aware that the directors of any corporation actually make very few decisions.
*
He is aware of very little of the real world.
He does have a rich fantasy life.


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > I take it that you are aware that the directors of any corporation actually make very few decisions.  Especially with very large corporations they are honorary positions.
> ...



So I see!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 11, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> You no longer get to bullshit on this forum.
> If you have 100 like everyone else and then everyone else has 25, your 100 have become more valuable.
> Not to mention that most Directors know what's going to happen months before it happens and so make contingencies to cash in on economic slumps.
> You know, like how Warren Buffet made a fortune from the 2008 crash that he caused.



I never cease to find it tragic when I come across minions like Indee here. Everything he just said was 100% inaccurate (and it's _provable_). But he refuses to accept reality. He prefers the comfort of the liberal masters preaching him the liberal ideology. Here is what *really* happened - and Warren Buffet didn't cause anything. It was Bill Clinton, the libtards, and their idiot socliaist 1997 Community Re-Investment Act that caused the crash...


----------



## regent (Jun 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


They were jumping out of windows because they had lost  their wealth via investments. It was the wealth-greed that did them in. So many wealthy have the  money to live the good life but they want more so they invest and bingo  lose it all.  It was greed that caused them to invest and the loss that killed them.  How many poor or middle class took that final jump?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2016)

regent said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wealthy people lost money in the Depression?

That's the opposite of your original claim. Were you lying, or just wrong?


----------



## regent (Jun 11, 2016)

If one had x amount of dollars would those dollars be worth more in a depression or in a period of prosperity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 11, 2016)

regent said:


> If one had x amount of dollars would those dollars be worth more in a depression or in a period of prosperity?



So a wealthy guy who had all his wealth in cash would benefit from a Depression?


----------



## Markle (Jun 11, 2016)

regent said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What is wrong with wanting more?  Do you demand less?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

Markle said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


So Markle, in his profound ignorance, states:
What is wrong with wanting more?  Do you demand less?

Markle was commenting on a post by regent which said, in total, "In a depression the wealthy get enormous benefits. Their wealth increases and their costs go down. Labor becomes extremely cheap as do products. At one time it was called "utility of poverty." An economic depression is a great period for the wealthy."   
So Markle made the above post, I guess thinking it was profound.  But in fact which:
1.  Has nothing to do with his post at all.
2.  Shows the incredible ignorance of Markle. 
I think Markle is simply a totally ignorant con tool, so it should be no surprise.  And that he owes Regent an apology is obvious.  But that would take some measure of class and integrity, so we can be sure there will be no apology.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 13, 2016)

I asked for a list of Directors who lost big in the 2008 crash and got NO REPLY.
The fact is that Directors have huge storage "houses" of wealth; they can outlast those below them and are worth more today than they would have been worth had there been no crash.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> I asked for a list of Directors who lost big in the 2008 crash and got NO REPLY.
> The fact is that Directors have huge storage "houses" of wealth; they can outlast those below them and are worth more today than they would have been worth had there been no crash.


       .[/QUOTE]
*Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened

Good article.  Suspect you have seen it.  But nearly zero cons have.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for a list of Directors who lost big in the 2008 crash and got NO REPLY.
> ...


*Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened

Good article.  Suspect you have seen it.  But nearly zero cons have.*[/QUOTE]

What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?[/QUOTE]
Post 756 for the Retarded amongst us.
Tell me how poor the MNC Directors are now.
They've destroyed over 98% of the American public and continue to off-shore and business visa us to death.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Post 756 for the Retarded amongst us.
Tell me how poor the MNC Directors are now.
They've destroyed over 98% of the American public and continue to off-shore and business visa us to death.[/QUOTE]

*Tell me how poor the MNC Directors are now.*

Tell me which ones made money in the crash, how much they made and how you know.

Thanks!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Tell me how poor the MNC Directors are now.*

Tell me which ones made money in the crash, how much they made and how you know.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

The fortunes of Directors are published in magazines.
Now do some research and post something other than a vacuous question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...





> The fortunes of Directors are published in magazines.
> Now do some research and post something other than a vacuous question.



*The fortunes of Directors are published in magazines.*

I'm sure when you provide the data, and your explanation, we'll finally see your wisdom.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?[/QUOTE]

You should read the article.  It says nothing about gitting "some" of it back.  


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?[/QUOTE]

So, here is the "and":
1. Huge recession.
2.  Losses to all income classes were great.
3.  During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
4.  Only 7% of recovery income growth went to the other 99%.
5.  The income gap became much greater.

So, do you still have to say "and" because it is too complex for you to understand?

Is that outcome ok with you?

Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Tell me how poor the MNC Directors are now.*

Tell me which ones made money in the crash, how much they made and how you know.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Hopefully, you know that your post is among the stupidest ever.  There are thousands and thousands of MNC directors.  No one is going to post all of their earnings, because it would be a several year long effort.  Because, individually, no one really wants to see really long lists.
Now, having made that ignorant a request, perhaps you can tell us why you would want someone to put the answer together for you?

Why would you think anyone would want to put it together?

Why, me boy, do you think you deserve all the work to do so?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You should read the article.  It says nothing about gitting "some" of it back.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



What a stupid claim.
The rich lost more when the market tanked, they got some of it back when the market recovered.
And?[/QUOTE]





> So, here is the "and":
> 1. Huge recession.
> 2.  Losses to all income classes were great.
> 3.  During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
> ...



I read the article. I even read the "paper" it referenced. Both were stupid.

*During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
*
So what? Why only look at 2010? How about an update to cover 2010-2015?
Because that wouldn't give the same result.

Incomes are slow to recover. The market tanked and recovered faster.
Mean rich people own a lot of stock.

*because it is too complex for you to understand?*

Because it's a typical, simplistic, liberal take on a snapshot in time.
*
Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?*

You want to reduce the income gap?
Seal the border and boot 12 million illegals.
That'll do wonders for incomes at the lower end.

_As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, *the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 *(after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007._

Incomes at the Top Rebounded in First Full Year of Recovery, New Analysis of Tax Data Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

OMG! Rich people lost a lot of money before 2010!!!

Lose big.....win big.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...





> Hopefully, you know that your post is among the stupidest ever.  There are thousands and thousands of MNC directors.  No one is going to post all of their earnings, because it would be a several year long effort.  Because, individually, no one really wants to see really long lists.
> Now, having made that ignorant a request, perhaps you can tell us why you would want someone to put the answer together for you?
> 
> Why would you think anyone would want to put it together?
> ...




*Hopefully, you know that your post is among the stupidest ever.*

You are the expert on stupid. Derp!

*perhaps you can tell us why you would want someone to put the answer together for you?*

Indeependent make a moronic claim about MNC Directors. If he wants to prove his claim, he'd better get going.
I'll be here, laughing at his idiocy.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I read magazines whilst you inveterately post, "Prove it.".
How seriously can anybody with a brain take you when that's all you ever post?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> So, here is the "and":
> 1. Huge recession.
> 2.  Losses to all income classes were great.
> 3.  During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
> ...


     [/QUOTE]

I read the article. I even read the "paper" it referenced. Both were stupid.
But you are a tool.  Of course you would say that.  But the article is well referenced and a properly done study.  So, you want to tell us all what you believe was stupid about it?

*During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
*
So what? Why only look at 2010? How about an update to cover 2010-2015?
Because that wouldn't give the same result.
*Because the article was done in 2012, me boy.  Always hard to forecast the future.*

Incomes are slow to recover. The market tanked and recovered faster.
Mean rich people own a lot of stock.
So, one would expect that the rest of the income groups recovered later?  Got it.  We will look at your article and see what it shows!!

*because it is too complex for you to understand?*

Because it's a typical, simplistic, liberal take on a snapshot in time.
*So it is too complex for you.  Others more well respected on the subject feel the article is quite well done.  And, since the Great Republican Recession of 2008, seven years have passed.  And still, me boy, the lower 99% have not recovered.  And, last I knew, 7 years is not a snapshot in time.*
*
Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?*

You want to reduce the income gap?
Seal the border and boot 12 million illegals.
*As soon as you tell us how to pay for it and build it, but it will do no good.  Just shows that you are either ignorant or simply a con tool.  My money is on the later.  
Did you think that the Mexican gov was going to pay for it?
Can you show a case where such a wall has ever worked, me boy?*

_As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, *the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 *(after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007._

Incomes at the Top Rebounded in First Full Year of Recovery, New Analysis of Tax Data Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

OMG! Rich people lost a lot of money before 2010!!!
*Stupid statement.  We all know that.  Did you think that sentence was profound?*
Lose big.....win big.
*Stupid statement again!  Because, as rational people have noticed, the other 99% lost big, but did not win big. * 

Lets see what the article you link says:
"the Piketty-Saez data, t*wo-thirds of the nation’s total income gains (adjusted for inflation and population growth[4]) in the economic expansion from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households; the top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928*.  From 2002 to 2007, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the top 1 percent of households* grew more than *_*ten times *faster_ than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.[5] "
So, you forgot to mention that the top 1% already owned the largest share of income since before the great depression.  How did you miss that?
*Growth at the Top Driven by Growth at the Very Top*
The share of total before-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households has been rising since the late *1**970s, and in the past decade it has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s. This is mostly because of the rising share of before-tax income going to the top households within the top 1 percent.*
To illustrate the lopsided growth at the top of the income scale, the chart below separates income groups within the top 1 percent of the distribution. The top 1 percent in 2010 had incomes above $350,000 and saw average income growth of nearly 12 percent from 2009 to 2010. As the chart shows, growth for households in the “bottom half” of the top 1 percent was significantly lower than growth for the multimillionaires at the very top of the income distribution.







As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 (after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007.  While this share of the total income loss is substantial, it is less than this group’s share of the loss in the dot.com collapse at the start of the decade.  Moreover, *the top 1 percent had a higher average income and a larger share of total income in 2009 than in 2002. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*I read magazines whilst you inveterately post, "Prove it.".*

You made a goofy claim about MNC directors and you want me to post proof? Durr.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I read the article. I even read the "paper" it referenced. Both were stupid.
But you are a tool.  Of course you would say that.  But the article is well referenced and a properly done study.  So, you want to tell us all what you believe was stupid about it?

*During recovery income growth went 93% went to the wealthiest 1%.
*
So what? Why only look at 2010? How about an update to cover 2010-2015?
Because that wouldn't give the same result.
*Because the article was done in 2012, me boy.  Always hard to forecast the future.*

Incomes are slow to recover. The market tanked and recovered faster.
Mean rich people own a lot of stock.
So, one would expect that the rest of the income groups recovered later?  Got it.  We will look at your article and see what it shows!!

*because it is too complex for you to understand?*

Because it's a typical, simplistic, liberal take on a snapshot in time.
*So it is too complex for you.  Others more well respected on the subject feel the article is quite well done.  And, since the Great Republican Recession of 2008, seven years have passed.  And still, me boy, the lower 99% have not recovered.  And, last I knew, 7 years is not a snapshot in time.*
*
Do you see no problem with a larger income gap?*

You want to reduce the income gap?
Seal the border and boot 12 million illegals.
*As soon as you tell us how to pay for it and build it, but it will do no good.  Just shows that you are either ignorant or simply a con tool.  My money is on the later.  
Did you think that the Mexican gov was going to pay for it?
Can you show a case where such a wall has ever worked, me boy?*

_As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, *the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 *(after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007._

Incomes at the Top Rebounded in First Full Year of Recovery, New Analysis of Tax Data Shows | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

OMG! Rich people lost a lot of money before 2010!!!
*Stupid statement.  We all know that.  Did you think that sentence was profound?*
Lose big.....win big.
*Stupid statement again!  Because, as rational people have noticed, the other 99% lost big, but did not win big. *

Lets see what the article you link says:
"the Piketty-Saez data, t*wo-thirds of the nation’s total income gains (adjusted for inflation and population growth[4]) in the economic expansion from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households; the top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928*.  From 2002 to 2007, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the top 1 percent of households* grew more than *_*ten times *faster_ than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.[5] "
So, you forgot to mention that the top 1% already owned the largest share of income since before the great depression.  How did you miss that?
*Growth at the Top Driven by Growth at the Very Top*
The share of total before-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households has been rising since the late *1**970s, and in the past decade it has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s. This is mostly because of the rising share of before-tax income going to the top households within the top 1 percent.*
To illustrate the lopsided growth at the top of the income scale, the chart below separates income groups within the top 1 percent of the distribution. The top 1 percent in 2010 had incomes above $350,000 and saw average income growth of nearly 12 percent from 2009 to 2010. As the chart shows, growth for households in the “bottom half” of the top 1 percent was significantly lower than growth for the multimillionaires at the very top of the income distribution.






As a result of the financial collapse and Great Recession, the top 1 percent absorbed nearly half of the total income loss from 2007 to 2009 (after adjusting for inflation and population growth), leaving the average income for this group over 36 percent ($520,000) lower than it was in 2007.  While this share of the total income loss is substantial, it is less than this group’s share of the loss in the dot.com collapse at the start of the decade.  Moreover, *the top 1 percent had a higher average income and a larger share of total income in 2009 than in 2002. *[/QUOTE]

*Because the article was done in 2012, me boy. Always hard to forecast the future.*

You're right, authors never go back and update their work. Derp!

Of course in this case, if he did it here, people would see he was a whiny, low info lib.

*And, since the Great Republican Recession of 2008, seven years have passed.  And still, me boy, the lower 99% have not recovered.
*
Barack hasn't fixed things yet? LOL!

*As soon as you tell us how to pay for it and build it, but it will do no good.  *

How to pay for it? Shit, the money we'll save on education, criminal justice and unpaid medical expenses will pay for it in a year or two.

*Can you show a case where such a wall has ever worked
*
Can't do worse than Obama's current open-door policy.
Now if we start deporting the illegal aliens already here, fewer will try to sneak past a wall.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




*Hopefully, you know that your post is among the stupidest ever.*

You are the expert on stupid. Derp!   
Having read years of posts made by you, a con tool, you are correct.  I am an expert on you.  Who has proved himself to be stupid.

*perhaps you can tell us why you would want someone to put the answer together for you?*

Indeependent make a moronic claim about MNC Directors. If he wants to prove his claim, he'd better get going.
I'll be here, laughing at his idiocy.

Watch the laughing, dipshit.  It is a common trait of congenital idiots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



He's an idiot, but I have no proof it's congenital.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He's an idiot, but I have no proof it's congenital.

Ah, but if you would learn how to read these posts, you would understand I was talking about you.  And in your case, I was just trying to be kind.  Cause if it is congenital, it is not your fault.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Well, you're an idiot too, so you've got that going for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...





> The fortunes of Directors are published in magazines.
> Now do some research and post something other than a vacuous question.



_Pay for directors at Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies rose to a record average of $251,000 last year, the sixth straight year of increased compensation since federal rules began requiring disclosure.

Board Director Pay Hits Record $251,000 for 250 Hours
_
Masters of the Universe.....making so little? LOL!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Old saying on Wall Street that I'm am SURE you are FULLY aware of...
Don't give me your paycheck, give me your BONUS.
Not to mention your PERKS.

Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Forget the paychecks and the bonuses, they can see 6 months into the future. Derp!


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I forgot that they behave at all those Banquets and BBQs and don't discuss business and Insider Information.
<SARCASM>Maybe that's why they don't all layoff thousands of employees at the same time, etc...</SARCASM>

By the way, posting "Derp" simply means you have nothing, and it's rather boring.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 16, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Old saying on Wall Street that I'm am SURE you are FULLY aware of...
> Don't give me your paycheck, give me your BONUS.
> Not to mention your PERKS.
> 
> Try again.



that's whats so wonderful about capitalism. If a guy is making a ton of money you are free to become a competitor with a lower price!!

Liberals want govt violence against Wall Street when they could simply compete against them and get there share of the tons of money!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



I THINK A CONGENITAL IDIOT IS ABOUT TO POST A BAT SHIT STUPID POST.  YUP, HERE"S ED.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I THINK A CONGENITAL IDIOT IS ABOUT TO POST A BAT SHIT STUPID POST.  YUP, HERE"S ED.



Violent person attack in frustration at his liberal ignorance::

that's whats so wonderful about capitalism. If a guy is making a ton of money you are free to become a competitor with a lower price!!

Liberals want govt violence against Wall Street when they could simply compete against them and get their share of the tons of money!!!


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



But Social Security, Medicaid and public education are socialism, as are public libraries, government owned roads, sewage treatment plants, and other infrastructure.


----------



## Markle (Jun 25, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Wrong.  You don't know what Socialism is do you?

*so·cial·ism*
  (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
_n._
*1. *Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods isowned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
*2. *The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means ofproduction are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


No....they are *not*. Why do liberals need _everything_ explained to them? 

First of all, the U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare, food, etc. are *not* one of them. Therefore, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are 100% *illegal*.

Second, a public library is not socialism as it does not take from one to benefit another. _Everyone_ can use that library. Same with roads. Furthermore, it is done at the *local* level where it is legal.

Just stop with your desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable. Socialism doesn't work. It has *never* worked. Liberalism is an idiot, failed ideology. It's time liberals grow up and accept scientific fact.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> But Social Security, Medicaid and public education are socialism, as are public libraries, government owned roads, sewage treatment plants, and other infrastructure.



Instead of a "funny" button, posts like these need an "ignorant" button...


----------



## regent (Jun 26, 2016)

Seems America has had socialistic programs as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution. Whatever socialism is.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

regent said:


> Seems America has had socialistic programs as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution. Whatever socialism is.


Does this help?

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
_noun_

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Socialism is not what you think it is, dork. 

Democratic socialism does not control the means of production. It provides social services within a capitalist framework, eg education, healthcare, social security, and infrastructure.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Typical liberal. Words have no meaning. Just make shit up as they go and redefine everything. Here is the definition again sweetie, whether you can accept it or not....

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
_noun_

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be *owned or regulated by the community as a whole*.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 26, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Democratic socialism does not control the means of production. It provides social services within a capitalist framework, eg education, healthcare, social security, and infrastructure.



There is no such thing as "democratic socialism" goof-ball. All socialism is "democratic". If it's not, then it isn't socialism. It is communism.

At the end of the day, it is a failed ideology. All you people do is collapse nations and cause disease, famine, and poverty to spread like wild fire. You're idiot ideology collapsed Cuba. It collapsed the former U.S.S.R. It collapsed Cambodia. It collapsed Ethiopia.

It has *never* worked and it *never* will. If you want "social services" so badly, then your lazy ass should get up off of your couch and you provide them. How _dare_ you attempt to force me to provide it for you in a free society. Stop being so greedy and lazy and you provide food, housing, education, etc. to the people you think need and/or deserve it.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> Socialism is not what you think it is, dork.
> 
> Democratic socialism does not control the means of production. It provides social services within a capitalist framework, eg education, healthcare, social security, and infrastructure.



A little education for you - which you are _desperately_ in need of...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Socialism is not what you think it is, dork.
> ...



You are talking, me boy, about ayn rand, who had no credentials of any kind.  Just an author, talking about a socio economic system that never existed, and never will.  Dipshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Her "credentials" was that she lived in the communist Soviet Union and knows communism when she sees it. Meanwhile, you don't even have those "credentials". You have none. Zip. Zero. Just ignorant, uninformed _opinion_.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Seems America has had socialistic programs as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution. Whatever socialism is.
> ...


Actually, that is


P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...





P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Her "credentials" was that she lived in the communist Soviet Union and knows communism when she sees it. Meanwhile, you don't even have those "credentials". You have none. Zip. Zero. Just ignorant, uninformed _opinion_.

Glad to see you know that.  Ayn Rand, like several million others, lived in a communist nation.  As almost everyone knows.  Came here, and wrote a book.  About an economic and Social system that has never ever worked, and never will.  She, like millions of others, know communism much better than you or I.  But her books were *fictions.  *There were and have never been successful Libertarian nations.  All the attempts failed, and the people did indeed live in abject poverty and misery.  So, she had credentials to talk about the soviet economic system, which was a bad attempt at communism.  And which failed.
But she made up Libertarianism, for weak minded minds like yours.  Because for decades and decades, it has never, ever worked.  


Now, as to credentials, I do have some. But thanks for trying.  My bet is that your highest education was high school.  Diid you graduate, me boy?
I look at anyone who thinks Libertarianism is a viable system as an obvious idiot.  Because, me boy, hard as you may try, you will find only failures.  Try Somalia, dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


No....they are *not*. Why do liberals need _everything_ explained to them? 

First of all, the U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare, food, etc. are *not* one of them. Therefore, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are 100% *illegal*.

Are you serious, or are you simply trying to prove you are a toad.  You forgot all of the amendments.  Jesus, me boy.  Were you born stupid, or have you been working at it.  Have you ever wondered why, if Social Security, for instance, was not illegal, the Supreme Court disagrees with you?  Proof again you are an idiot.


Second, a public library is not socialism as it does not take from one to benefit another. _Everyone_ can use that library. Same with roads. Furthermore, it is done at the *local* level where it is legal.
So, you are suggesting it is LOCAL socialism.  Did you have a point?


Just stop with your desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable. Socialism doesn't work. Actually, it does indeed work.  It has *never* worked. Liberalism is an idiot,Liberalism is a way of thinking.  Not an ideology.  Libertarianism is an ideology, and a failed one. failed ideology. It's time liberals grow up and accept scientific fact.
Here are a few Democratic Socialist Nations, for you review.  And please, you should not get pissy with me.  I am helping you.  Get pissy with the people who have been lying to you.  

"The *Nordic* model (also called *Nordic* capitalism o*rNordic social democracy*) refers to the economic and social policies common to the *Nordic countries*(Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden)."
Google

Now, if you were capable of it, you could look at the internet and find another 40 or so.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Are you serious, or are you simply trying to prove you are a toad.  You forgot all of the amendments.  Jesus, me boy.  Were you born stupid, or have you been working at it.  Have you ever wondered why, if Social Security, for instance, was not illegal, the Supreme Court disagrees with you?  Proof again you are an idiot.



No, _stupid_....I don't wonder at all. The Supreme Court does is not stacked with 9 justices dedicated to upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution as it was _intended_ to be. Instead, idiots like Obama stacked it with *political activists* such as Sonja Sotomayor and Elana Kagen.

It speaks volumes that you can't dispute my factual claim. If all you can say is "why does the Supreme Court disagree with you", then you have no leg to stand on at all. The U.S. Constitution dictates how the government functions - not the Supreme Court. Show me what article and section in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is authorized to provide Social Security, Medicare, etc.

You are so astoundingly *ignorant* of the most basic fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. government that you are actually _shocked_ when someone speaks the truth to you. You are a Dumbocrat master's dream. Completely ignorant, totally blind, and fiercely obedient to their false narrative.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Actually, it does indeed work. Liberalism is a way of thinking.  Not an ideology.



Bwahahahahahaha! Liberalism is (and I quote) "a way of thinking" but it is not (and I quote again) "an ideology"?!? Clearly someone doesn't know the meaning of the word "ideology". 

i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
_noun_
*1*. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Seriously "me boy" you really are the _dumbest_ person to _ever_ post on USMB. And that is saying a ton. What are ideas? Just another way of saying "thinking".

And now that I've provided basic definitions for you, back to the issue at hand. Liberalism doesn't work. It has *never* worked. It has been a spectacular failure _all _over the world. Liberalism collapsed Cuba. Liberalism collapsed the former U.S.S.R. (they subsequently turned to capitalism to save themselves). Liberalism collapsed Cambodia. Liberalism collapsed Greece. Liberalism collapsed Ethiopia. We could go on and on and on. It's an ignorant and failed ideology. Game _over_, "me boy".


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Second, a public library is not socialism as it does not take from one to benefit another. _Everyone_ can use that library. Same with roads. Furthermore, it is done at the *local* level where it is legal.
> ...



The fact that you actually need this explained to you yet again is unbelievable. There are two points to be made here - both of which I have already made. Both of which are very simple. And both of which you have been incapable of grasping for some reason. Here they are yet again:

The U.S. Constitution _explicitly_ restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Anything beyond those 18 specific powers is 100% *illegal* for the federal government to involve themselves in. It is unacceptable for our federal government (or any level of government for that matter) to engage in illegal behavior.

A library and a road is not socialism. It does not take from me and give to you. The road is not yours. I have as much access to that road and that library as you do or as my neighbor does. But when the federal government takes my money and buys food with it that they then give to unemployable people like _you_, and you eat that food, _that_ is socialism. I labored - you benefited.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Here are a few Democratic Socialist Nations, for you review.  And please, you should not get pissy with me.  I am helping you.  Get pissy with the people who have been lying to you.
> 
> "The *Nordic* model (also called *Nordic* capitalism o*rNordic social democracy*) refers to the economic and social policies common to the *Nordic countries*(Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden)."
> Google
> ...



I don't need to "review" them. I can promise you that I know about them than you ever will. For instance, I know that everything you point to about those nations is 100% _false_. I know that you people also pointed to Greece for these same "success stories" only to watch the nation completely collapse. Over the past 5 years, they have experienced horrific riots. One the past year, the banks were shut down and people were allowed to pull $70 per week to live off of. I know that England is currently trying to decentralize their single payer, government-run healthcare system because it is collapsing their nation. 

And I know the single most important thing that you are far too stupid to realize - that while libtards such as yourself point to all of these other nations as bastions of liberal utopia, not one of you assholes _ever_ denounce your U.S. citizenships and go live in these nations. Meanwhile, people from all over the world (including these nations) risk their lives to make it to the U.S.

You lose. But thank for playing.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Socialism is not what you think it is, dork.
> ...



Ayn Rand believes in greed and selfishness which she seeks to justify by vilifying the poor.  Anyone who reads her has wasted their time.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Are you serious, or are you simply trying to prove you are a toad.  You forgot all of the amendments.  Jesus, me boy.  Were you born stupid, or have you been working at it.  Have you ever wondered why, if Social Security, for instance, was not illegal, the Supreme Court disagrees with you?  Proof again you are an idiot.



No, _stupid_....I don't wonder at all. The Supreme Court does is not stacked with 9 justices dedicated to upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution as it was _intended_ to be. Instead, idiots like Obama stacked it with *political activists* such as Sonja Sotomayor and Elana Kagen.

It speaks volumes that you can't dispute my factual claim. If all you can say is "why does the Supreme Court disagree with you", then you have no leg to stand on at all. The U.S. Constitution dictates how the government functions - not the Supreme Court. Show me what article and section in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is authorized to provide Social Security, Medicare, etc.

You are so astoundingly *ignorant* of the most basic fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. government that you are actually _shocked_ when someone speaks the truth to you. You are a Dumbocrat master's dream. Completely ignorant, totally blind, and fiercely obedient to their false narrative.
What is really  stupid is that you think that social security and medicare are illegal.  And, me boy, it would take one chief justice to determine it was illegal.  Sorry you think that a Supreme Court that has been mostly conservative for over a decade could stop that.
Now, here is the thing.  If you think those programs are illegal, you could no doubt find a source to back you up.  You know, me boy, an impartial source. If you ever use them.  So, I will be waiting to see that source to back up your claim.  Otherwise, we can all consider it just a stupid claim by a stupid person.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a few Democratic Socialist Nations, for you review.  And please, you should not get pissy with me.  I am helping you.  Get pissy with the people who have been lying to you.
> ...



I don't need to "review" them. I can promise you that I know about them than you ever will. For instance, I know that everything you point to about those nations is 100% _false_. I know that you people also pointed to Greece for these same "success stories" only to watch the nation completely collapse. Over the past 5 years, they have experienced horrific riots. One the past year, the banks were shut down and people were allowed to pull $70 per week to live off of. I know that England is currently trying to decentralize their single payer, government-run healthcare system because it is collapsing their nation.

And I know the single most important thing that you are far too stupid to realize - that while libtards such as yourself point to all of these other nations as bastions of liberal utopia, not one of you assholes _ever_ denounce your U.S. citizenships and go live in these nations. Meanwhile, people from all over the world (including these nations) risk their lives to make it to the U.S.

You lose. But thank for playing.
You won nothing, me boy.  At this point, I have provided proof that there are democratic socialist countries doing very, very well.  Complete with a link;
You, on the otherhand, have no proof of what you say.  No link.  Just your opinion.  And you must know how much I value your opinion.
That is two losses for you, two wins for me.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



The fact that you actually need this explained to you yet again is unbelievable. There are two points to be made here - both of which I have already made. Both of which are very simple. And both of which you have been incapable of grasping for some reason. Here they are yet again:

The U.S. Constitution _explicitly_ restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Anything beyond those 18 specific powers is 100% *illegal* for the federal government to involve themselves in. It is unacceptable for our federal government (or any level of government for that matter) to engage in illegal behavior.

A library and a road is not socialism. It does not take from me and give to you. The road is not yours. I have as much access to that road and that library as you do or as my neighbor does. But when the federal government takes my money and buys food with it that they then give to unemployable people like _you_, and you eat that food, _that_ is socialism. I labored - you benefited.

The fact that you actually need this explained to you yet again is unbelievable.
*Perhaps it is time you provide a link, dipshit.  Because so far you have not proven you are correct.
So, are you unable to prove you claim?

i*ncapable of grasping for some reason. Here they are yet again:
*I grasped them.  They are untrue statements.  Which is why you can not prove them.
*
A library and a road is not socialism.
*Of course not.  A library is an entity that is social, created and run by local gov.  A road is a product created by a private company but paid for and governed by the government, either national or local.  Neither are socialism, dipshit.  Socialism is an economic type.  They are social entities in that both were paid for by taxes.  
*
The road is not yours. I have as much access to that road and that library as you do or as my neighbor does.
*The road, me boy, belongs to us all.  In other words, it belongs to the government, who collects taxes to pay for the road, and to maintain the road.  Making it (Now pay attention) a social entity.  If it were private, as toll roads often are, then you would have no right to use the road unless you paid tolls to the owner of the road.  And it would be     PRIVATE.

Yes, me poor ignorant con troll, food stamps are a social program.  
That is really, really bad, me poor ignorant con troll.  You got one of 4 correct.  I would shoot myself if I were that stupid.
*


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> What is really  stupid is that you think that social security and medicare are illegal.


Me boy....I don't "think" anything. I *know* they are illegal. The U.S. Constitution says so.



Rshermr said:


> And, me boy, it would take one chief justice to determine it was illegal.


Again....me boy....a "Chief Justice" *doesn't* determine that. The U.S. Constitution does. The question is - why haven't you taken 10 minutes out of your life to read it and why do you comment about something you've never read?


Rshermr said:


> Now, here is the thing.  If you think those programs are illegal, you could no doubt find a source to back you up.


I did. I've given you the source a _dozen_ times now. It's called the *U.S. Constitution*, me boy... You seem _really_ confused. Perhaps all of this is just a tad over your head?



Rshermr said:


> You know, me boy, an impartial source. If you ever use them.  So, I will be waiting to see that source to back up your claim.


There is no more impartial source in the world than the *U.S. Constitution*. I've proven you have no idea what you are talking about. You're completely and totally unqualified to be having this discussion because you simply have no idea about the subject matter.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That is two losses for you, two wins for me.  Dipshit.



Uh-oh....someone is a little butt-hurt about having their ignorance about the subject matter exposed. But here's the thing "me boy" - that is _your_ fault. You're the one who wants to speak out about a subject you are 100% ignorant about. Don't blame me for _your_ failures and your mistakes.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I would shoot myself if I were that stupid.



You _are_ that stupid. You can't even figure out how to respond to comments on a website. You have to change colors to respond instead of properly quoting. What kind of a tool can't figure out how to respond to comments properly? You have to be *really* dumb for this to be too difficult for you.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Perhaps it is time you provide a link, dipshit.  Because so far you have not proven you are correct.
> So, are you unable to prove you claim?



I provided it at _least_ a dozen times already. It's called the *U.S. Constitution*, me astoundingly ignorant boy!

Here is a link, me astoundingly ignorant boy!
United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is the actual document itself, me astoundingly ignorant boy!



 

Ask an adult to read it to you since you are illiterate.



Rshermr said:


> I grasped them.  They are untrue statements.  Which is why you can not prove them.



I provided it at _least_ a dozen times already. It's called the *U.S. Constitution*, me astoundingly ignorant boy!

Here is a link, me astoundingly ignorant boy!
United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is the actual document itself, me astoundingly ignorant boy!




Ask an adult to read it to you since you are illiterate.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The road, me boy, belongs to us all.  In other words, it belongs to the government, who collects taxes to pay for the road, and to maintain the road.  Making it (Now pay attention) a social entity.  If it were private, as toll roads often are, then you would have no right to use the road unless you paid tolls to the owner of the road.  And it would be     PRIVATE.



Wait. Wait. Wait. You think Toll Roads are "private"? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!! You really are the _dumbest_ poster in the _history_ of USMB.

    

(Psst......_stupid_.....the toll roads are owned and operated by the state governments. The tolls are just to pay for the roads themselves, repairs, etc.)


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Me: A library and a road is *not* socialism.
You (stupid): Of course not.  A library is an entity that is social, created and run by local gov.  A road is a product created by a private company but paid for and governed by the government, either national or local.  Neither are socialism, dipshit.
*
(Synopsis - you 100% agree with me and then end it with "neither are socialism, dipshit". Uh....yeah stupid....that's exactly what I said) *

Me: The road is not yours. I have as much access to that road and that library as you do or as my neighbor does.
You (stupid): The road, me boy, belongs to us all.
*
(Synopsis - once again you 100% agree with what I said and just parrot my accurate points) *

You (stupid): You got one of 4 correct.  I would shoot myself if I were that stupid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, _stupid_ let's think about this. I got the food stamps right (according to _you_) and I got the fact that roads are *not* "socialism" right (according to _you_). So by your own account, I got at least 2 out of 4 right.

You are literally so stupid, you either can't count past one _or_ you don't even realize when you agree with what other people say.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > What is really  stupid is that you think that social security and medicare are illegal.
> ...



Got it, dipshit.  So you can not prove your point.  Because you were lying.  got it. 


P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That is two losses for you, two wins for me.  Dipshit.
> ...




Sure, me boy.  You can not find a single source.  You would need to have the constitution and all amendments, and you do not, dip shit.  But, if you were telling the truth, you would simply provide a link.  I know you are lying.  I know ss and medicare are completely legal.  And I know you lost, and are twisting and turning like a frog in the fire.  You are funny, however.  Sad, but funny.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> *Ayn Rand believes in greed and selfishness* which she seeks to justify by vilifying the poor.  Anyone who reads her has wasted their time.



Exactly like you do! When is the last time you skipped a meal to make sure that someone else had a meal? When is the last time you picked up a second job to pay for the health insurance policy of someone who was uninsured?

Never. You know why? You're selfish _and_ greedy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps it is time you provide a link, dipshit.  Because so far you have not proven you are correct.
> ...



Why would I want to expend that much effort to prove something is legal.  You made the statement about illegality, but you can find no one of expert status to prove your point.  You loose again.  And are proving to be a clown.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Sure, me boy.  *You can not find a single source*.  You would need to have the constitution and all amendments, and you do not, dip shit.  But, if you were telling the truth, you would simply provide a link.  I know you are lying.  I know ss and medicare are completely legal.  And I know you lost, and are twisting and turning like a frog in the fire.  You are funny, however.  Sad, but funny.



Um....I've provided it about 20 times now junior. It's called the U.S. Constitution. I added a link to it and added the document itself several times now. I know you're illiterate so I don't expect you to read it. But I did tell you to have an adult read it to you.

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *Why would I want to expend that much effort* to prove something is legal.  You made the statement about illegality, but you can find no one of expert status to prove your point.  You loose again.  And are proving to be a clown.



Bwahahahahahaha!!! Reading the U.S. Constitution is "too much effort" in your mind?!? All 8 minutes is too much for you???


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 27, 2016)

One needn't be a liberal to quibble with Friedman.  Just ask an Austrian School economist


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > What is really  stupid is that you think that social security and medicare are illegal.
> ...





P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The road, me boy, belongs to us all.  In other words, it belongs to the government, who collects taxes to pay for the road, and to maintain the road.  Making it (Now pay attention) a social entity.  If it were private, as toll roads often are, then you would have no right to use the road unless you paid tolls to the owner of the road.  And it would be     PRIVATE.



Wait. Wait. Wait. You think Toll Roads are "private"? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!! You really are the _dumbest_ poster in the _history_ of USMB.

    

(Psst......_stupid_.....the toll roads are owned and operated by the state governments. The tolls are just to pay for the roads themselves, repairs, etc.)

*Psst.....stupid...........the toll roads below are owned and operated by private companies!!*
Uh, I was starting to feel sorry for you.  But since you are stupidly trying to act like a jack ass, here is proof of how badly wrong you are.  Here are most of the private toll toads in the United States.  There are many also in Canada, and world wide.  But here it is, just to prove you are stupid:
*List of toll roads in the United States*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






*[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)*
This article *possibly contains original research*. _(February 2008)_
This article may *require cleanup* to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Needs to follow a consistent format _(April 2011)_
This article *needs additional citations for verification*. _(February 2015)_
This is a list of *toll roads in the United States*. Included are current and future high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, express toll (ETL) lanes, and hybrid systems.HOV, as used in this article, is high occupancy vehicle.

This list does not include items on the list of toll bridges, list of toll tunnels, list of ferry operators, nor pre-freeway turnpikes.

As of January 2014, the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have never had any toll roads, while Connecticut,Kentucky, and Georgia have had toll roads in the past, but have since removed the tolls on those roads. Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, Georgia, and Tennessee currently have proposals to construct future toll roads.

*Alabama[edit]*
*Road name* *Southern or western terminus* *Northern or eastern terminus* *Length (mi)* *Length (km)* *Cash tolls (automobile)* *Notes*
Joe Mallisham Parkway I-20 / I-59 – Tuscaloosa US-82 – Northport 4.9 7.9 $1.50 Cash or Freedom Pass
Emerald Mountain Expressway Wares Ferry Road –Montgomery Rifle Range Road –Montgomery 1.2 1.9 $1.50 Cash or Freedom Pass
Foley Beach Express SR-180 – Orange Beach SR-59 – Summerdale 14.0 22.5 $3.00 Cash or Freedom Pass; extension to I-10 planned
Montgomery Expressway SR-152 – Montgomery SR-143 – Prattville 6.9 11.1 $1.25 Cash or Freedom Pass
*California[edit]*
*Road name* *Southern or western terminus* *Northern or eastern terminus* *Length (mi)* *Length (km)* *Cash tolls (automobile)* *Notes*



SR 73 (San Joaquin Hills Toll Road) I-5 – Laguna Niguel I-405 – Irvine 12.0 19.3 $5.25 All-electronic toll; allows both FasTrak and ExpressAccount (toll-by-plate)



SR 125 (South Bay Expressway) SR 905 – Otay Mesa SR 54 – Spring Valley 10.0 16.1 $3.75 Cash or FasTrak









SR 133 / SR 241 /SR 261 (Eastern Toll Road) I-5 – Irvine SR 91 – Anaheim 24.0 38.6 $3.50 (east branch)
$3.25 (west branch) All-electronic toll; allows both FasTrak and ExpressAccount (toll-by-plate)



SR 241 (Foothill Toll Road) Oso Parkway –Rancho Santa Margarita SR 133 (Eastern Toll Road) 12.0 19.3 $2.00 All-electronic toll; allows both FasTrak and ExpressAccount (toll-by-plate)
17 Mile Drive Pebble Beach Pacific Grove 17.0 27.4 $9.25 Cash,[_clarification needed_] motorcycles prohibited
*Managed lanes[edit]*
*Road name* *Southern or western terminus* *Northern or eastern terminus* *Length (mi)* *Length (km)* *Cash tolls (automobile)* *Notes*



I-10 (El Monte Busway) Alameda Street – Los Angeles I-605 – Baldwin Park 14.0 22.5 $0.25~$1.40 /mi All-electronic toll; must have FasTrak
HOV-2+ and motorcycles toll-free[1]



I-15 (Express Lanes) SR 163 – San Diego SR 78 – Escondido 20.0 32.2 $0.50~$8.00 All-electronic toll; must have FasTrak
HOV-2+ and motorcycles toll-free[2]



I-110 (Harbor Transitway) 182nd Street – Los Angeles Adams Boulevard –Los Angeles 11.0 17.7 $0.25~$1.40 /mi All-electronic toll; must have FasTrak
HOV-2+ and motorcycles toll-free[3]



I-680 (Express Lanes) SR 237 – Milpitas SR 84 – Sunol 13.8 22.2 $0.30~$6.00 All-electronic toll, southbound only; must have FasTrak
HOV-2+, motorcycles and eligible hybrids toll-free[4][5]






I-880 / SR 237(Express Lanes) North First Street –San Jose Dixon Landing Road –Milpitas 4.0 6.4 $0.30~$6.00 All-electronic toll; must have FasTrak
HOV-2+ and motorcycles toll-free[6]



SR 91 (Express Lanes) SR 55 – Anaheim Green River Road –Corona 10.0 16.1 $1.20~$10.00 All-electronic toll; must have FasTrak
HOV-3+ and motorcycles receive 50% discount[7][8]

What is that now, 0 for 4.  Do you ever win a point, or do you just say you did?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!  You're so humiliated by your astounding ignorance being exposed that you're attempting to cover it up by posting something that proves nothing. Where in that entire post does it show _any_ *private* company owning _any_ toll road, _stupid_?

All you did was list the roads, the tolls, and the costs. Not one word about them being owned by *private* companies. You are _such_ an asshole. You comment on things when you have no idea what you're talking about. Then you throw a tantrum like a small child when someone proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If it were private, as toll roads often are, then you would have no right to use the road unless you paid tolls to the owner of the road.  And it would be     PRIVATE.



By the turn of the twentieth century *most toll roads were taken over by state highway departments*.

Toll roads in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

So we've now established that RSHERMR knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, or state governments. 

Seriously dude....you have no business being on a political website because you don't know a _damn_ thing about the U.S. structure of government or current politics.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *Psst.....stupid...........the toll roads below are owned and operated by private companies!!*
> Uh, I was starting to feel sorry for you.  But since you are stupidly trying to act like a jack ass, here is proof of how badly wrong you are.



Seriously Rshermr....how *stupid* do you feel right now? 

*Q: Why do I have to pay a toll to use the Ohio Turnpike when I already pay taxes?*
A: The maintenance, operation and security of the Ohio Turnpike are funded almost exclusively through tolls – not taxes. Your taxes pay for other roads and interstates, but not the Turnpike. What’s more, the Ohio Turnpike receives no federal funding and only a small portion of state tax ($0.05 per gallon from gasoline purchased only at service stations on the Turnpike). This small portion of state tax money is specifically allocated to the maintenance and repair of bridges and overpasses that are state routes

Taxes?!? _Taxes_? Private companies can't lay and collect taxes. Only government can. Why would there be a FAQ on a *government* website about the reason for toll fees when the people already pay taxes.

Oh that's right...because the toll roads are run by the *state*. Not by private companies. Unless you're living in the 1800's. 

General FAQ


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *Psst.....stupid...........the toll roads below are owned and operated by private companies!!*
> Uh, I was starting to feel sorry for you.  But since you are stupidly trying to act like a jack ass, here is proof of how badly wrong you are.  Here are most of the private toll toads in the United States.  There are many also in Canada, and world wide.  But here it is, just to prove you are stupid:
> *List of toll roads in the United States*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



So....uh...._where_ in your post and link here is a single private company listed? You listed the toll roads, the states, and the costs. But I haven't seen a single private company listed and which road it is that they supposedly own.

Do you realize that you haven't gotten _one_ single thing accurate in any of your posts? How sad is that? You really should have knowledge about a subject before commenting on it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The road, me boy, belongs to us all.  In other words, it belongs to the government, who collects taxes to pay for the road, and to maintain the road.  Making it (Now pay attention) a social entity.  If it were private, as toll roads often are, then you would have no right to use the road unless you paid tolls to the owner of the road.  And it would be     PRIVATE.



Wait. Wait. Wait. You think Toll Roads are "private"? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!! You really are the _dumbest_ poster in the _history_ of USMB.
Damn.  You are truly dumb.  There are over 250 private toll roads in the United States.  Here is a link to the site where you can see all about all of them.  Is it painful to be as stupid as  you are?

(Psst......_stupid_.....the toll roads WE  are owned and operated by the state governments. The tolls are just to pay for the roads themselves, repairs, etc.
In some cases, and in others the roads are privately owned.  See below, me boy:

(PSST.....STUPID.... THERE ARE MANY PRIVATE TOLL ROADS IN THE UNITED STATES:

"The Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, begun in 1792 between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania was the first major American turnpike. According to Gerald Gunderson's _Privatization and the 19th-Century Turnpike_, "In the first three decades of the 19th century Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, mostly in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system that present-day Americans assume had to be primarily planned and financed by the federal government."[1] Because electronics did not exist in that era, all tolls had to be collected by human cashiers at toll booths, creating high fixed costs that could only be covered by a large volume of traffic. As railroads and steamboats began to compete with the turnpikes, the companies started to shut down their less profitable routes or turn them over to governments."

Here are a few others:


1.1Dalton Highway

California
Colorado
3.1Super Slab

Florida
4.1Orchard Pond Parkway
4.2Reedy Creek Improvement District

5Illinois
5.1Chicago Skyway

Indiana
6.1Indiana Toll Road

Texas
Virginia
8.1Dulles Greenway

The thing is, roads are mostly owned by governments, and managed by governments, either local or national.  But that makes most roads Socialist items.  They are managed by the government for the use by the people.  Except for toll roads, all of the public can use them.  And, except for toll roads, all are paid for, from building to managing, via taxes.  By definition, social processes.

sorry, dipshit.  You are *WRONG AGAIN!
*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

*[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]
Psst.....stupid...........the toll roads below  are owned and operated by private companies!!*
Uh, I was starting to feel sorry for you.  But since you are stupidly trying to act like a jack ass, here is proof of how badly wrong you are.
Private highways in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously Rshermr....how *stupid* do you feel right now?
Please.  No one feels stupid with you around.   I mean, you are the dipshit who believes social security is illegal, but can not prove it.  Not even the most bat shit crazy con web site makes the claim that social security or medicare are illegal.  How stupid do you feel right now?  A lying con tool with no link to back up his lies.  


*Q: Why do I have to pay a toll to use the Ohio Turnpike when I already pay taxes?*
A: The maintenance, operation and security of the Ohio Turnpike are funded almost exclusively through tolls – not taxes. Your taxes pay for other roads and interstates, but not the Turnpike. What’s more, the Ohio Turnpike receives no federal funding and only a small portion of state tax ($0.05 per gallon from gasoline purchased only at service stations on the Turnpike). This small portion of state tax money is specifically allocated to the maintenance and repair of bridges and overpasses that are state routes

Taxes?!? _Taxes_? Private companies can't lay and collect taxes. Only government can. Why would there be a FAQ on a *government* website about the reason for toll fees when the people already pay taxes.

Oh that's right...because the toll roads are run by the *state*. Not by private companies. Unless you're living in the 1800's. 
Actually, some are.  There are privately owned, and publically owned, roads.  Fees from taxation or tolls pay for building roads and maintaining them.  But, with the exception of completely private roads, road systems are social projects.  Period.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would I want to expend that much effort* to prove something is legal.  You made the statement about illegality, but you can find no one of expert status to prove your point.  You loose again.  And are proving to be a clown.



Bwahahahahahaha!!! Reading the U.S. Constitution is "too much effort" in your mind?!? All 8 minutes is too much for you???
I have read the constitution.  But I did not memorize the 27 amendments.  Nor do I want to.  Besides, I know the answer to the question, and so do you.  You lied, so you do not want to try to bring forward a link to prove yourself wrong.  But there you go.  WRONG AGAIN. This is getting boring.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *Psst.....stupid...........the toll roads below are owned and operated by private companies!!*
> ...


that is, of course, completely untrue.  but then, you lie a lot.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jun 27, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101


Your inherent fallacy is that you "shift the burden" by not being specific at all regarding what you are trying to assert.

You should take a college freshman composition class so that you can learn about intro, body, conclusion, and summary.



P@triot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


And further after this subsequent post, you sound completely ignorant of history.

Maybe US History 101 is what you should start with.

Pay special attention to The Great Depression and also to The New Deal.



P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...



In your 3rd post it seems clear you don't know much about current events either.

"To big to fail" was coined during the GW Bush Administration after they let Lehman Bros fail and saw the crash that resulted from it.

Truly the most sacred institutions of the GOP are the NYSE and the NASDAQ.

These are even more sacred to them than are more tax cuts for the rich.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Seriously Rshermr....how *stupid* do you feel right now?
> Please.  No one feels stupid with you around.   I mean, you are the dipshit who believes social security is illegal, but can not prove it.  Not even the most bat shit crazy con web site makes the claim that social security or medicare are illegal.  How stupid do you feel right now?  A lying con tool with no link to back up his lies.




I've explained this to you over and over junior. The *U.S. Constitution* _explicitly_ restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Providing retirement plans, food, or healthcare is *not* one of those powers. Therefore, they are all 100% illegal.

Then you asked me for a link - which I provided, along with the original document - over and over and over. Your response to that was "why would I waste my time reading the U.S. Constitution?". So you admit you're completely *ignorant* of the subject matter at hand. Nothing more needs to be said after that. Game over junior.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Pay special attention to The Great Depression and also to The New Deal.



Oh....the *unconstitutional* "New Deal"? In which an unhinged, radical libtard egregiously violated the U.S. Constitution? You mean - the "New Deal" that even hard-core left-wing UCLA admitted prolonged The Great Depression?

You want to talk about schooling? Class is in session junior. Take your seat...

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



You can't comprehend what is being "asserted" here? Basic English too confusing for you? Might I suggest asking an adult for help? 

You're literally the _only_ one who claims they didn't understand the premise of this thread. Which means you are either _really_ stupid or you are really disingenuous and trying to run from facts which you are uncomfortable with but which you are incapable of disputing. Which is it, junior?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I have read the constitution.  But I did not memorize the 27 amendments.  Nor do I want to.  Besides, I know the answer to the question, and so do you.



Well allow me to clue you in - *none* of the amendments altered the limitation of power for the federal government to the 18 enumerated powers _delegated_ to it by the states.

So now that this basic reality has been explained to you, you can now admit that you were wrong. I must say, I am proud of you for coming forward and admitting that you are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution. Admitting you actually have an ignorance problem is the first step!


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So point it out to us junior. Show me the name of *one* "private" company in your post.

Dude....who are you trying to kid here? Your post is there for _everyone_ to read and I read it. Not one single private company listed. How humiliating for you. You cut and paste as "proof" and the _only_ thing it proves is that I was right all along!

Now tell is again how "private" companies own and control toll roads...


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oh that's right...because the toll roads are run by the *state*. Not by private companies. Unless you're living in the 1800's.
> Actually, _some_ are.



Uh-oh....reality starting to set in junior? You said "toll roads are privately owned". After I proved that was not true, now you move the goalposts and state "well...._some_ are". Yeah...I'm sure somewhere in the world you can find one exception where a private company owns a toll road. But in America, 99.998% are owned by the state.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> "The Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, begun *in 1792* between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania was the first major American turnpike.
> 
> Because electronics did not exist in that era, all tolls had to be collected by human cashiers at toll booths, creating high fixed costs that could only be covered by a large volume of traffic. As railroads and steamboats began to compete with the turnpikes, the companies started to shut down their less profitable routes or *turn them over to governments*."



So your "evidence" that you are right that private companies own toll roads in the U.S. is to point to a link that sites 1792 to start the article and ends by admitting that those companies turned the toll roads over to state governments?!? I posted a wiki link telling you that 10 posts ago, _stupid_. You continue to prove me right. Thank you!


----------



## yiostheoy (Jun 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Like I said before, your fallacies including moving the goal posts and shifting the burden are insurmountable.

You have no credibility.  The more fallacies the less credibility.

Eventually credibility goes completely away.


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Like I said - ask an adult for help. This isn't subject matter for small children. Though I salute you for trying youngster.

(Haven't "moved" the goalposts once. You're just parroting what I proved rshermr was guilty of because you have no original thoughts of your own and are incapable of disputing what was stated).


----------



## yiostheoy (Jun 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Can you think of any reason why everyone should NOT put you on their ignore list?


----------



## P@triot (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


That's usually what liberals who can't handle the truth do and are too frustrated by their inability to come up with a false narrative that would be believable do.

Now here is _my_ question. Can you think of one reason why I would even remotely give a dam whether a disingenuous liberal asshat puts me on ignore?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Your inherent fallacy is that you "shift the burden" by not being specific at all regarding what you are trying to assert.[/QUOTE]

You can't comprehend what is being "asserted" here? Basic English too confusing for you? Might I suggest asking an adult for help?

You're literally the _only_ one who claims they didn't understand the premise of this thread. Which means you are either _really_ stupid or you are really disingenuous and trying to run from facts which you are uncomfortable with but which you are incapable of disputing. Which is it, junior?[/QUOTE]  /QUOTE]
Like I said before, your fallacies including moving the goal posts and shifting the burden are insurmountable.

You have no credibility.  The more fallacies the less credibility.

Eventually credibility goes completely away.[/QUOTE]
Like I said - ask an adult for help. This isn't subject matter for small children. Though I salute you for trying youngster.

(Haven't "moved" the goalposts once. You're just parroting what I proved rshermr was guilty of because you have no original thoughts of your own and are incapable of disputing what was stated).[/QUOTE]      /QUOTE]
Can you think of any reason why everyone should NOT put you on their ignore list?[/QUOTE]
That's usually what liberals who can't handle the truth do and are too frustrated by their inability to come up with a false narrative that would be believable do.

Now here is _my_ question. Can you think of one reason why I would even remotely give a dam whether a disingenuous liberal asshat puts me on ignore?

No.  You do not care about anything, me boy.  Certainly about truth.  And I see no reason you should care about anything.  Stupid people seldom do.  There is no way to have a discussion with you, me boy.  that is always true of really stupid people.  You believe what you want, and regardless of evidence against what you believe, you continue on like you were correct.  But you are not correct, me boy.  You are simply a con troll with no idea or concern about truth.
On the other hand, no one cares.  You can not debate, it is beyond you, so no one wants to be involved with you.

Just go on thinking you are smart.  It typically works for stupid people.[[/QUOTE]


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

Sources are the *OMB* (Office of Management & Budget) and the *CBO* (Congressional Budget Office). I point that out because libtards will inevitably scream "Pfff! Heritage" when the info comes from their own precious government itself...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The *U.S. Constitution* _explicitly_ restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. *Providing retirement plans, food, or healthcare is not one of those powers*. Therefore, they are all 100% illegal.


BULLSHIT!
It is in the very first enumerated power!

"The Congress shall have *Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and* *provide for the* common Defense and *general Welfare of the United States*"


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The *U.S. Constitution* _explicitly_ restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. *Providing retirement plans, food, or healthcare is not one of those powers*. Therefore, they are all 100% illegal.
> ...


Hey _stupid_.....the "General Welfare" is in regards to their 18 enumerated powers. The founders didn't feel the necessity to write a 2,000 page document (like Obamacare) because back then liberalism didn't exist so people actually had integrity. They didn't want to name each and every item under the 18 enumerated powers. And since the federal government was already *explicitly* *restricted* to _just_ those 18 enumerated powers, they granted them broad powers within each of those - hence the "general welfare". Perhaps you might want to educate yourself just a smidge before commenting and embarrassing yourself?

Here is none other than Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had *not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, *as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers*, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - *Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)*

“*[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded*, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do *whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers*.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – *Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)*

I never cease to marvel at your ignorance about the U.S. Constitution and your own government. I included the exact dates of the quotes so you can research them for yourself too junior.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Nothing in those two quotes precludes SS or health care.
Try again.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Actually they do. How stupid do you feel right now? The federal governments powers are explicitly restricted to the 18 enumerated powers and nothing more. Since those powers don't include healthcare, retirement, feeding the people, etc. those items are completely unconstitutional.

I don't blame you though brother. I know you've been duped by liberals and trained to ignore reality in favor of ideology.


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2016)

The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
Justice Holmes.


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


So how did Jefferson buy the Louisiana Territory? Where in the Constitution is that found?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
> Justice Holmes.


Um...*no*....it's *not*. The Constitution is what the _Constitution_ says it is. The Supreme Court has no power over the Constitution itself. Try reading the document just _one_ time. You'll see that no where in the document does it grant the Supreme Court the power over the document itself. That's an incredibly stupid comment to make.

Think about it - why would a group of men get together in some pretty miserable conditions, fight like hell, and pound out a document, all agree to it, and then decide that none of it matters anyway as they are going to hand over ultimate power to another body of people? That's so stupid, it defies logic. The founders did *not* do that. The Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution as the highest law in the land. The Supreme Court is empowered to decide whether laws passed by Congress (such as Obamacare) are constitutional. They cannot, however, decide that the 2nd Amendment means "x" or that it means "y". The Constitution says exactly what it says and the Supreme Court is not empowered to alter it or decide its meaning.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It's not. And Thomas Jefferson himself acknowledged as much. In fact, he drafted an entire amendment after the purchase to make it legal moving forward but Congress rejected it.

What is your point here? That because the federal government violated the law during the Thomas Jefferson administration that it is forever ok for the federal government to violate the law? That's literally as stupid as saying because Ted Bundy raped and murdered women, it is ok for anyone else to rape and murder women. The fact is - the illegal actions by one person (no matter who they are) does not make that action suddenly legal and sure as hell does not make it ok for other people to do it as well.


----------



## regent (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
> ...


The Court took that power unto itself in Marbury, and the nation has now accepted the idea.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 17, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Be that as it _may_....it doesn't make it any more constitutional or right. Let me ask you something - if Ted Bundy's precedence (along with the Green River Killer, BTK, Dahmer, etc.) became "accepted by the public" - would _you_ accept it? Or would you have the integrity to stand up and say "this is flat out wrong - I don't care how many people are ok with it because it is _still_ against the law"? When something is illegal, it's illegal. If the American people really want to make it legal, all they have to do is amend the Constitution. There is a system for that - so why aren't liberals using it?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You have proven nothing, just simply patted yourself on the back a lot.  You are a troll.  Your understanding of the constitution as it stands today is completely lacking.
Which, me child, is why you are unable to find a single impartial source to back up your drivel.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Because, dipshit, the fact is that amending the constitution is very difficult, and quite disruptive.  And, because the concept of Implied Powers has been well proven effective, and the people of the country approve of it.  Only nut cases like yourself have a problem with Implied Powers.  Because, me boy, you are stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Because, dipshit, the fact is that amending the constitution is very difficult


Well there is some "_logic_"! Because you can't get the votes to achieve what you want you'll just break the law.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And, because the concept of Implied Powers has been well proven effective, and the people of the country approve of it.  Only nut cases like yourself have a problem with Implied Powers.  Because, me boy, you are stupid.



Says the idiot who can't speak proper English...

By the way - there is no such thing as "implied powers" and there never was. It's more of your irrational liberals absurdity. Would you agree with the "implied powers" that allows me to punch you in your stupid face and then shoot you in the head? No?!? _Why_ not? Hypocrite.... I guess powers are only "implied" when they "imply" something _you_ want. Idiot.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The federal governments powers are *explicitly restricted to the 18* enumerated powers and nothing more.


BULLSHIT!
Several amendments to the Constitution have granted Congress additional powers.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is widely cited as being an exhaustive list of Congressional power. But, in reality, there are a total of thirty (up to 35, depending on how they’re counted) Congressional powers that are listed throughout the document. 

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The federal governments powers are *explicitly restricted to the 18* enumerated powers and nothing more.
> ...


You've combined Sections which outlines the structure of government with Article 1, Section 8 which are the enumerated powers.

Tell me - _genius_ - how the heck is this (your very last bullet point) a "power" or "responsibility"?!? *It's simply outlining the structure of government and how it will function*. 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Please Eddy, for the sake of your reputation, stop talking about the U.S. Constitution. Your embarrassing yourself. You don't know the document at _all_. You're just Googling and then cutting and pasting without reading or understanding what you're doing.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Learn to read! How is the highlighted part you cited NOT an enumerated power?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Because it is explicitly stating the structure of government and how it will _function_.

Please Eddy, for the sake of your reputation, stop talking about the U.S. Constitution. Your embarrassing yourself. You don't know the document at _all_. You're just Googling and then cutting and pasting without reading or understanding what you're doing.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

*"Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations"*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Patriot, you are now a well known tea party joke.  Your understanding of the constitution is simply what you want to believe.  What is true is a different thing.  And, believing that you can pick and choose those parts of the subject that fit in your little mind is simply more proof of how petty, and ignorant, you are.  Really, except for you, no one much takes you seriously.   But I do.  I think you are a joke.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2016)

regent said:


> The Court took that power unto itself in Marbury, and the nation has now accepted the idea.



you mean the libsocialists have accepted it because they don't have the IQ to understand freedom from govt. This is why they spied for Stalin( when he was slowly starving 60 million to death)  , gave him the bomb, and now vote for the open Commies, Sanders/Clinton


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 19, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.



yes  very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

*James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 19, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.
> ...


The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!


----------



## Markle (Jul 19, 2016)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Probably the same way Alaska was bought from Russia.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 19, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No *stupid* - but they clarify _exactly_ what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts _prove_ you're *wrong*.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yeah.....and *why* did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

“*For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do*? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, *when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed*?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my _favorite_. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not _explicitly_ granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Dumb ass.....they disagreed on the grounds that people like you would attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution and they simply wanted to lock down the rights they felt were the most critical. So once again - thank you for walking right into that one.

If you read it all - it _proves_ what I've been saying all along: all of the founders who built the U.S. Constitution were universally adamant that the federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers and may not engage in one single thing beyond those 18 powers. As always, you are dead wrong on this.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Bullshit!


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Well _there_ is an intelligent response.... That's what a liberal yells when the facts leave them nothing left to dispute and they can't yell "racist".

Try doing some homework just once in your lazy life Eddy. The founders were all *very* clear on this. Even an idiot like Hamilton who was looking to strengthen the federal government. You cannot find _one_ founding father who ever stated that the federal governments powers go beyond the U.S. Constitution itself.

Once again....I would like to thank you for blindly walking right into that one. You did more to prove my point by mentioning Federalist 84 than anything else. Let a liberal talk long enough and they will inevitably contradict their own position (that's what happens though when positions are built on irrational emotion rather than *facts*).


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The founders were all *very* clear on this.


The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The founders were all *very* clear on this.
> ...


And _who_ said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Actually, very intelligent.  That is, that what you post is bullshit.  Because as a tea party poster, what can one suggest.  

So, is it possible for you to concisely say what it is that you believe???  Is it that you believe there are only 18 powers allowed by the constitution?  Is it that you do not believe anyone out there who disagrees with you and has expertise? Is it simply that you are a con troll and incapable of rational discussion? 
Is it simply that what you say is bullshit?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You know what I say? Come back and talk to me when your literacy improves ten-fold. I seriously can't even make out what you're trying to say there.

The only thing I can address is your incoherent ramblings about "disagreements". It's a nonsensical position. It's like saying "can't someone have their own opinion about whether the sun actually exists or not". Um...no. Not they can't. It's a fact that the sun exists. And it's a fact that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document that says exactly what it says. There is nothing "implied". There is nothing to "interpret". It is a legal document, written in black and white. There is no matter of "opinion" on it. There is only the facts (conservatives acceptance of it) and the attempt to warp and pervert it for personal gain (liberals take on it).


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




The only thing I can address is your incoherent ramblings about "disagreements".
*I just re read my post.  It is very easy to understand.  No one but you is at blame for being incapable of understanding english.  Perhaps a remedial english class would help you, dipshit.*

It's a nonsensical position. It's like saying "can't someone have their own opinion about whether the sun actually exists or not". Um...no. Not they can't. It's a fact that the sun exists. 
*What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying?  You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.
*
And it's a fact that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document that says exactly what it says. 
*Uh, did you think that was a profound post, dipshit.  There are lots of legal documents that are interpreted differently by different people.  the Constitution is one of those things.  And your interpretation, that of a tea party nut case, is not an interpretation that means a thing.  Because you are a con troll.*

There is nothing "implied". There is nothing to "interpret". It is a legal document, written in black and white. There is no matter of "opinion" on it. 
*Sorry, it is very much subject to interpretation.  By supreme court justices.  Nice try, but you loose.  Implied powers do indeed exist and are valid based on the interpretation of the supreme court.  Only con trolls and tea party nut cases, like you, do not understand.  Again, sorry but you loose.

As soon as you get an education making you a constitutional expert let me know.  Otherwise, you are just posting drivel.


*


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...

Communism Still Persists


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...


  [/QUOTE]
Communism Still Persists
So does Polio.  Communism is a subject only because con trolls like Patriot pushes the subject.  Here is a fact check on a Republican Congressman who agrees with Patriot.

*"Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party*
West is using guilty by association here, and has failed to prove that any member of Congress is a communist. Pants on Fire!"
None

Poor ignorant con trolls have to lie a lot to make their crazy points.  Next they will be warning us about zombies still persisting.   Dip shits.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.
Patriot is just another con troll.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying?  You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.*



My God your English is _atrocious_. What country do you live in?

Your atrocious English explains why you can't follow a simple conversation. What do I _think_ exists? The *U.S. Constitution*, _stupid_. In fact - I know it exists.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...
> ...


Incidentally, your ability to simply respond to a post and/or edit it is just as atrocious as your English. You place a quote before Allen West above but not after Communist Party. You have a [/QUOTE] at the top of the post for no reason at all. God Almighty do you operate mentally on the level of a 2nd grader fumbling their way through a computer exercise in a classroom.

And yeah, _stupid_ - people who are not communists do *not* "associate" with communists. How _stupid_ are you? Guess what the Mafia calls people who interact with them and do work with them but are not "made men"? *Associates*. _Idiot_.

You associate with those that you share a common cause with.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying?  You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.*
> ...





P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *What is it that you think exists, me boy.? Or are you incapable of saying?  You are posting incoherent ramblings, dioshit.*
> ...



Not at all.  Perfect english, me boy.  I had actual college english classes.  You appear to have had no english classes, but could use some.  You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences.  But you are obviously incapable of reading them.  So, you post attacks based on your very limited capabilities.  You do indeed need a remedial english class.  Though I suspect you are so stupid it would not take.
That is it?  You believe the constitution exists. Do you think that is profound, me poor ignorant con troll?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


 at the top of the post for no reason at all. God Almighty do you operate mentally on the level of a 2nd grader fumbling their way through a computer exercise in a classroom.

And yeah, _stupid_ - people who are not communists do *not* "associate" with communists. How _stupid_ are you? Guess what the Mafia calls people who interact with them and do work with them but are not "made men"? *Associates*. _Idiot_.

You associate with those that you share a common cause with.[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

Well, the last sentence, is true.  Cons do associate with cons only.  Which keeps them stupid.
But liberals associate with cons, and liberals, and libertarians, and look for truth.  I understand that as a con troll that is hard to understand, dipshit.
So, you are incapable of understanding english.  Got it.  You are a congenital idiot.  Got it.  You are a con troll.  Got it.  And you are irrational.  Got it.  Though being irrational  and being a con troll is redundant, eh, dipshit?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.
Patriot is just another con troll.[/QUOTE]

It is _astounding_ how stupid the both of you are. Allow me to humiliate the both of you in front of everyone here...

Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the *first* one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find _one_ post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I *didn't*. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE _did_ mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE. Of course, with your illiteracy and your completely inability to understand how this site functions, how to edit a reply, and who is posting what, I could see how your dumb ass would get so easily confused. I'm assuming Ed's problem is that he's just so pissed off from me obliterating his misinformation with facts that he can't figure out which way is up.

Either way....exposing the astounding ignorance of you two primates is _comical_.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I see your ability to respond to a simple post without filling the screen with duplicates, unnecessary marks, and all kinds of nonsense hasn't improved...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Not at all.  Perfect english, me boy.


Oh the irony! The _irony_!!! We'll just let that one sit out there and simmer for a while...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I had actual college english classes.  You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences.



Well apparently they didn't cover how to use quotations in those classes...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That is it?  You believe the constitution exists. Do you think that is profound, me poor ignorant con troll?



Apparently it is for libtards who don't know it exists, don't realize it is _law_, and don't realize that law is *not* open to "interpretation".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It is _astounding_ how stupid the both of you are. Allow me to humiliate the both of you in front of everyone here...

Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the *first* one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find _one_ post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I *didn't*. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE _did_ mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE. Of course, with your illiteracy and your completely inability to understand how this site functions, how to edit a reply, and who is posting what, I could see how your dumb ass would get so easily confused. I'm assuming Ed's problem is that he's just so pissed off from me obliterating his misinformation with facts that he can't figure out which way is up.

Either way....exposing the astounding ignorance of you two primates is _comical_.

That is the best you could do?  Really.  some personal attacks and lies.  Which is not even a surprise.  Just the normal ignorant con troll pushing lies, because he (you) are incapable of talking about the actual subject.  And as normal, for con trolls, got wrapped up in your posts, and made no sense at all.  You may not be Ed. B, but you echo his posts and lack of intelligence.  Congratulations on that, me poor ignorant con troll.  I never in all of my posts penned the words Federalist Papers.  Dipshit.
So, you loose again.  Just your normal ignorance.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I had actual college english classes.  You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences.
> ...


Ah, but they did.  sorry you missed the classes.  I assume you were too stupid to get in.  And, by the way, did you think this thread was about english comp?  Or are you just unable to argue your points.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

I just had to take a screen shot of #883 from Rshermr for everyone to enjoy. As you can see, the boy wonder here can't figure out how to reply to a post on USMB. It appears that his response is all his words, when it fact half of it are _my_ words. Apparently Rshermr plagiarizes worse than Melania Trump does! 

I'm also particularly fond of his consistent placement of *[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]* in the _middle_ of posts for no apparent reason. 

I'll be the first to admit - it's completely unfair of me to expect this buffoon to understand the U.S. Constitution, how the government functions, or political issues when he hasn't mastered the English language and can't figure out how to use a website.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That is it?  You believe the constitution exists. Do you think that is profound, me poor ignorant con troll?
> ...



Ah, but we do.  and we, and the supreme court justices understand that it is, and has been forever, open to interpretation.  Sorry you missed it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 82294
> 
> I just had to take a screen shot of #883 from Rshermr for everyone to enjoy. As you can see, the boy wonder here can't figure out how to reply to a post on USMB. It appears that his response is all his words, when it fact half of it are _my_ words. Apparently Rshermr plagiarizes worse than Melania Trump does!
> 
> I'm also particularly fond of his consistent placement of


*[/QUOTE]* in the _middle_ of posts for no apparent reason. 

I'll be the first to admit - it's completely unfair of me to expect this buffoon to understand the U.S. Constitution, how the government functions, or political issues when he hasn't mastered the English language and can't figure out how to use a website.[/QUOTE]
thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You must know how much I appreciate your opinion.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I'm able to argue _all_ of my points. You're illiteracy problem is just my way of illustrating why it is you can't understand them. For instance, when you place a quote before the start of a sentence but fail to put one at the end. 

It's also a way to illustrate that you're just an idiot troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 82294
> ...


 in the _middle_ of posts for no apparent reason. 

I'll be the first to admit - it's completely unfair of me to expect this buffoon to understand the U.S. Constitution, how the government functions, or political issues when he hasn't mastered the English language and can't figure out how to use a website.[/QUOTE]
thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You must know how much I appreciate your opinion.
Got to run for a while.  I actually have a life.  You apparently just post to this board all day long, every day, Eh. And make up personal attacks.  Because you are incapable of rational conversation about the subject of the thread.   Sad for you.
Let me know and some day I will enlighten you about why I use the double quote.   Because you have it all wrong, as usual, dipshit.[/QUOTE]


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, you loose again.  Just your normal ignorance.


Um..._how_ exactly do I "lose" in a post that *proves* Ed lied and _you_ were completely confused?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> But liberals associate with cons, and liberals, and libertarians, and look for truth.  I understand that as a con troll that is hard to understand, dipshit.


Well now _everyone_ knows you're lying. Liberals are the most intolerant fascists on earth. They refuse to listen to conservatives like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (and, in fact, have worked to get them off the air because the truth they were telling was _killing_ the liberal agenda), they don't accept that a person of faith doesn't want to host a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay wedding, and they sure as _hell_ do *not* "look for truth". They abhor it.

Besides....what "truth" is there to be found in _communism_? 

Any other idiotic excuses you'd like to make for your liberal representatives having close ties to communist organizations?


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And make up personal attacks.  Because you are incapable of rational conversation about the subject of the thread.   Sad for you.


Awwwww....is 'wittle Rshermr butt hurt? After jumping into a conversation that you weren't even involved in and making personal attacks, you now want to cry like a little bitch once you realized you were in the ring with a heavyweight and weren't up to par?

This is a great lesson. Maybe next time you won't start making the personal insults. Oh - and I already proved your ass wrong on who mentioned the Federalist Papers first. It would really be wise not to challenge me on who made the personal insults between us first.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the *first* one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find _one_ post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I *didn't*. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE _did_ mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE.


But YOU came to edward's defense over the Federalist papers, and I never used them as a source for the Constitution. On the contrary, I objected to using them as the final word on the Constitution like YOU were using them.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

I had actual college english classes.  You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences.

Well apparently they didn't cover how to use quotations in those classes... [/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
Ah, but they did.  sorry you missed the classes.  I assume you were too stupid to get in.  And, by the way, did you think this thread was about english comp?  Or are you just unable to argue your points.  That you are hung up on a quotation mark shows your lack of intelligence.  And proves you to be a simpleton, and a con troll.

I'm able to argue _all_ of my points. So you say, me boy.   Every one else who sees your drivel thinks not.  You're illiteracy problem is obvious to all.  But no one cares.  It is your ignorance of the constitution that is astounding.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I had actual college english classes.  You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences: So you say, me boy.   Every one else who sees your drivel thinks not.


Those sentences side-by-side are _priceless_. Just priceless. I already proved that you're illiterate, that you're incapable of using this website, _and_ that you're clueless about the U.S. Constitution.

Now - you ignored the question (for obvious) reasons so I will ask it again: *what country are you from?*


----------



## P@triot (Jul 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the *first* one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find _one_ post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I *didn't*. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE _did_ mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE.
> ...


That wasn't the argument chief. You *falsely* accused me of bringing them up when in fact even you mentioned them in a post before I did. Just more glaring evidence of how liberals can't get the facts straight.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

Those sentences side-by-side are _priceless_. Just priceless. I already proved that you're illiterate, that you're incapable of using this website, _and_ that you're clueless about the U.S. Constitution.
*[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]*

Actually, those two sentences are fine.  Individually or side by side.  Nothing in the slightest illiterate about it.  And, me poor ignorant con troll, I have been using this web site for years.  And anyone who thinks that the us constitution is not open to interpretation is plain butt stupid.   
You see, me poor ignorant con troll, all you just did was type a couple personal attacks and an incorrect statement.  Not good if you are trying to impress someone.  Which you are.  Without any luck, me poor ignorant con troll.
And, as normal, you are incapable of making any economic argument.  And though you make political arguments about the constitutions, you make no rational sense.  Because you are stupid.

Check this out, me simpleton constitutional expert, in your own tiny mind:

*The Court and Constitutional Interpretation*
*"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence."*

*"And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process."*

*"In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.""*
*The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States*

*So, there you go, me boy.  Your attempt at saying that the supreme court does not allow for interpretation just got shot down, dipshit.  You loose.  *
*Want to try again?*
Just more glaring evidence of how con trols like you can't get the facts straight.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And, me poor ignorant con troll, I have been using this web site for years.


And you _still_ haven't figured out how to use it...


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.*


They built in a process for "meeting changing conditions" - it's called *amendments*.

Now we've established through your lack of proper English and your complete lack of understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government that your from another country. Which country?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.*
> ...



Yes, indeed, me lying con troll.  My english is proper.  You are not.  And it is you that has proven you have a complete misunderstanding of the constitution.  Expert source versus you, a bat shit con troll with absolutely no credentials proves my argument, and ruins yours.  
There are indeed amendments. We all understand that.  But there are many, many more interpretations than there have been amendments.  So, again, interpretations are indeed a part of out constitution, regardless of how bad you do not want there to be.  You lost that argument big time,  Trying to negate it with an argument regarding amendments is just like a con troll.  You make an argument that does not pass the giggle test, and irritate everyone who has a rational mind as you show how stupid you are.  
But not me, dipshit, I just do not take you at all seriously.  As a typical con troll, all you are capable of are personal attacks, lies, and a lost argument.  Thanks for proving to all that you are a total looser.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You can spin anything. First of all, I didn't say you were the "first" to bring up the Federalist papers, that was YOUR Straw Man. What I said is you used them as a source for the interpretation of the Constitution, which the below quotes clearly show.


P@triot said:


> No *stupid* - but *they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution.* Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.





P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...





edthecynic said:


> *YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The problem with Patriot is that he has absolutely no proof of his assertions.  And when he is proven wrong, he just lies.  So, technically, he is a typical con troll.  He could care less about the truth.  Because he has no honor, and no integrity, and no class.  He is a sad example of human life.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



we know why the liberals want to read the Constitution to be a communist document, why they spied for Stalin  and gave him the bomb when he was slowly starving to death 60 million, and why they vote for Sanders/Clinton when he is an open communist.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!



True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!
> ...


Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It sure is but then again every country on earth has been taken over by  people as stupid as liberals many many times throughout human history so we cant expect anything different now notwithstanding the incredible example of America, from which  you might have hoped that some would have had their eyes opened.
.

Thomas Jefferson:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!
> ...



And the board troll makes some more stupid posts.  I actually did not read them.  Learned long ago that the poor troll is brain dead, and you can not get the time back that you would spend trying to make sense of his drivel.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





P@triot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you.  Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



notice the natural violence of liberalism. There is no need for a liberal to think in the face of superior reasoning. They are communists and they know in their hearts what is best.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



notice that to a violent liberal people who agree with Madison have a low IQ.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oh we know you've never read any of the founders documents or original writings. You didn't have to tell us that you've never read the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers - it was painfully obvious.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you.  Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.


Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website....


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you.  Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.
> ...



OK, OK.  the two of you, if you sum you Iq's, really do not add up to one full person.  But maybe a half a normal person.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Again...coming from an idiot who can't figure out how to use a fairly simple website and who is a foreigner that has never read the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 22, 2016)

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...

Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work

The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work

The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact

These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep

On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 22, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
> 
> Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
> 
> ...


CON$ervatives feel safest when they go to an unlicensed doctor!!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
> 
> Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
> 
> ...



Having integrity, I do not use agenda driven web sites owned by right or left wing organizations.  You would be hard pressed to find a more partial, right wing source, me boy.  thanks for showing you have no integrity at all. 
Perhaps I should use moveon.org for a post.  Nah.  I think I will keep my integrity.  Con trolls have none.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Thanks for your post.  Made up of personal attacks, lies, and stupid accusations.  Proves you to be what you are:  A con troll.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


It always amazes me how liberals make personal attacks and then cry like little girls when someone returns the rhetoric.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
> ...


You have no integrity my foreign friend. You also have no education. There is no thing as "right wing source". There are only sources that provide *facts* (Heritage Foundation) and sources that *lie* for an agenda (MSNBC).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> You would be hard pressed to find a more partial, right wing source, me boy.  thanks for showing you have no integrity at all.



Supporting  Madison makes you the enemy if you are a liberal!! Can you admit that?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




You have no integrity my foreign friend. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.  You also have no education. Yes I do, as a matter of fact., way more than you.  BA and MBA.  There is no thing as "right wing source".   h, but there are.  First there is FOX, the most dishonest cable channel in the world.  And then there is Heritage being one of over 80 paid to post right wing "Think Tanks".   "Founded in 1973,  *The Heritage Foundation* *is a right-wing think tank.*"  Heritage Foundation - SourceWatch "   There are only sources that provide *facts* (Heritage Foundation) 

 "The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to *savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations.* The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill."    and sources that *lie* for an agenda (MSNBC).

"Think tanks may have a decided political leaning. *There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones*, and t*he conservative ones generally have more money.* One of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a way for business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias."
Think tanks - SourceWatch
No conservative think tanks?  Really, dipshit, you are such a liar.

You are too stupid to understand that you are conflating cable news channels and think tanks.  Heritage is a think tank, MSNBC is a cable channel.  Relative to truth in cable channels, FOX is easily the most dishonest:
*Fact Checker Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements To Either Be Mostly False Or A Lie*
*Fact Checker Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements To Either Be Mostly False Or A Lie
*

*MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards*
"At *Fox *and *Fox News*, *10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.

If you are smart enough to do so, click on the link, and you will find no other cable channel is close to as dishonest as FOX.  Funny how you missed that, me boy.
*
*Do you have anything to say that is true?  Because nothing you said in this post is.*


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That is not true.

The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.  

Twelve were proposed with two being rejected.

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal. Of the two amendments not ratified, the first concerned the population system of representation, while the second prohibited laws varying the payment of congressional members from taking effect until an election intervened. The first of these two amendments was never ratified, while the second was finally ratified more than 200 years later, in 1992.

Bill of Rights is finally ratified - Dec 15, 1791 - HISTORY.com


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...


Communism Still Persists
So does Polio.  Communism is a subject only because con trolls like Patriot pushes the subject.  Here is a fact check on a Republican Congressman who agrees with Patriot.

*"Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party*
West is using guilty by association here, and has failed to prove that any member of Congress is a communist. Pants on Fire!"
None

Poor ignorant con trolls have to lie a lot to make their crazy points.  Next they will be warning us about zombies still persisting.   Dip shits.[/QUOTE]You

Living in denial is something which comforts you does it not?

Allen West is simply pointing out the members of the Progressive Caucus.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : Caucus Members


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



As you know, if you're nearly as brilliant as you claim, is that case law makes no changes in the constitution.  Future decisions can overturn previous decisions, make modifications to them or uphold them without changing the constitution or and of the amendments.


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
> 
> Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
> 
> ...


 
100% true and outrageous.  Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



First, I never believe anything coming from a liar.  And since I never claimed to be brilliant, that makes you a liar. 
Second, the only case law that makes any difference in interpreting supreme court cases is that resulting from supreme court decisions.  And though they do not change the constitution, they have the same result.  Those decisions determine what the outcome of all future supreme court cases will be.  And provide guidance just as the constitution does.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2016)

Markle said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
> ...


Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements?  Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case.  Stupid post.  
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish.  You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue.  dipshit.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


There _is_ proof "me idiotic boy". Click the freaking link. Oh wait....that's right....you don't know how to use this website yet. Ask an adult to show you how to click on the link.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish.



1) prevent people from earning a living
2) raise prices making us all poorer
3) reward special interest groups
4) convince people not to be careful when shopping thus making them more likely to be victims


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2016)

Markle said:


> That is not true.
> 
> The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.


so, those who said the Bill of Rights was not necessary were wrong-right?

1 argument was that the rights were natural and already in place,  and enumerated powers did to give govt power to interfere so no worries

2nd argument was that if you gave nasty liberal govt power over rights they would subvert that power and use it to curtail rights

in retrospect its better that we got them in good plain language with clear intent. Libturd govt has not been able to restrict religion speech guns, when surely they would have if there was no clean simple prohibition given the proclivity to always do more and more interfering.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true.
> ...



Because you are a known congenital idiot, and a con troll, and totally stupid, you may want to look around.  No one is reading your drivel.  And if they actually do, they are probably also con trolls, and equally stupid.  So, hope you enjoy talking to yourself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish.
> ...


Another idiot who would go to an unlicensed doctor!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



So, let me see, me boy. If I use a far left bat shit crazy site, you would not take that as a source.  And you would be correct, since the site would not be impartial.  So, you use the Daily Signal and expect it to be a viable source.  Which, me boy, it is not.  It is, plain and simple, a bat shit crazy con web site.  And you are simply wasting my time.  I do not read drivel from such sites.  
So, no.  You posted nothing to read.  Your freaking link is bullshit, and you just showed again that  you are a con troll.  And dishonest.  Dipshit.  
I do not waste people's time using bull shit sites, as it is an insult to people with a working mind.  Nice try.  Now, find a dictionary and try looking up impartial.


----------



## Markle (Jul 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


And, markel posts even more con talking points, from one more bat shit crazy con web site.  Because cut and paste requires no intelligence.  And, markel has no intelligence.  It is perfect for the poor congenital idiot.  Economic argument is beyond him.  Not his fault.  Just bad luck.


----------



## P@triot (Jul 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You are the most economically ignorant person here, *me boy*. Your grammar and your ability to use a website are equally as lacking.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



No, me boy. I am not. But thanks for your opinion.  You know how much I respect your opinion. 
Did you have an economic argument you would like to try out, or are you simply a coward who posts personal attacks and lies.  Oh, of course.  You are a con troll.  Personal attacks and lies are all you do.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:

Some of the workers weren't helped at all, since their pay would have likely gone up anyway with experience and tenure on the job.

Although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase.

Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.

The economists found that the minimum wage hike that sounded so generous when passed resulted in somewhere between a $5.54 a week raise and a $5.22 a week reduction in pay.
In comments that sounded as if they came straight out of an Econ 101 text, the Post concluded that "Increasing the minimum wage increases the costs of hiring workers. As a result, employers must accept reduced margins or customers must pay steeper prices. If employers cannot stay in business while paying their staff more, they will either hire fewer people or give their workers fewer hours. As a result, even if wages per hour increase workers' total earning could decline."

*Turns out distorting the laws of economics for politics does not work after all.*

The Bitter Lesson From Seattle's Minimum Wage Hike

Why raising the minimum wage in Seattle did little to help workers, according to a new study


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.
> 
> The Washington Post recently highlighted a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening:
> 
> ...


*  [/QUOTE]
That would be singularly untrue.  You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like.  Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.  
The seattle study is particularly interesting to me, since I live in the area and know that at this point no one knows what will happen over time with the min wage increase.  And we have had every kind of study known to man.  Cons like you only believe the ones they like.  Others, who are rational, are waiting to see.
It is early in the progress of raising minimum wages in Seattle.  All literature suggests that it will take some time to see the results.  And there is not sufficient evidence at this point to be certain of the outcome.  As in all previous minimum wage increases, the expected benefits will take a few months, and really a few years, to be truly and rationally measured.  *

*Here is a middle of the road, and realistic study, by a long time economist:
*
"What happens when a study shows that a minimum-wage increase is simply having its intended effect? When it’s found to raise the pay of low-wage workers without causing much in the way of the job displacements that critics rail about? Unfortunately, one thing that apparently happens is the findings get misinterpreted (though, as I’ll show, this is partly due to the omission of key statistical information).

The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for _all_ Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.

The study also found that, relative to historical trends, the rate at which low-wage workers affected by the increase stayed employed rose by about three percentage points. For workers in the control group, it was up four points. Thus, absent the minimum-wage increase, there’d arguably be one percentage point more affected workers employed in Seattle.

*Putting aside for a moment the critical question of whether these changes are actually meaningful in a statistical sense, these outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses.*
To be clear, the fact that the policy has its intended effect doesn’t mean every affected worker ends up ahead (there is no policy on Earth that is always and everywhere costless to its intended beneficiaries). It means that the vast majority of low-wage workers end up with higher earnings. Even if some workers lose some hours of work, their annual income often goes up (which, in fact, is another finding from the study).

Minimum-wage opponents who claim that increases will cripple local economies, either overall or even in their low-wage sectors, thus get no help from the Seattle results. The study’s authors point out that one challenge in teasing out minimum-wage effects was that the Seattle economy “boomed” over this period, posting growth rates that “tripled the national average” and “outpaced Seattle’s own robust performance in recent years.”
Yet, despite these expected, generally positive findings, the study’s press coverage has been pretty negative.* Attacks from knee-jerk opponents of the minimum wage — who in some cases are paid by the low-wage employer and lobby to shoot at anything that moves, regardless of the evidence — were expected and are easily dismissed.* But writers who are typically more careful have also erroneously declared that “employment went down” in Seattle as a result of the increase (employment actually went up in Seattle relative to past trends), or that it “did little to help workers.” *In reality, what’s unfolding in Seattle thus far reflects the conclusion of a recent, exhaustive review of the minimum-wage literature by Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson: “While not a full solution to the issues of low-wage work, [the minimum wage] is a useful instrument of policy that has low social costs and clear benefits.*”

The study also has several important limitations, noted by minimum-wage scholar Michael Reich. First, as Reich explains, “The authors did not report the standard errors of the estimates, even though their calculations indicated that the employment effect was not distinguishable from zero.” This is a serious omission; policymakers cannot make informed decisions without that information.

Second, because of data limitations, the study analyzes employment changes solely in single-establishment firms. That means, for example, that retail and restaurant chains — groups significantly affected by the minimum wage — are generally left out of the study (multi-establishment employers account for half of Seattle’s jobs). In fact, when all establishments are included in the analysis, employment outcomes were relatively more positive in Seattle than in the control group, both for all firms and for lower-wage firms.

These and other problems, especially the *omission of standard errors, need to be resolved. *But for now, here’s what we can conclude: After Seattle raised its minimum wage, low-wage workers’ employment, hours and wages all rose substantially. Neighboring areas that had similar trends in these variables before the increase — and that, by the way, were also bound by the highest state minimum wage in the country when the increase took effect — saw even larger employment and hours gains. In other words, relatively high minimum wages in Seattle and in Washington more broadly have had their intended impact and have been perfectly compatible with a strong economy, one that’s handily beating national averages.

*As the Seattle minimum wage phase-in progresses, and the differential between the wage there and elsewhere grows larger, perhaps we’ll get results that really do fall outside the bounds of the standard outcomes. But that hasn’t been the case thus far."
So far, the Seattle minimum-wage increase is doing what it’s supposed to do

So, there you go.  Actual results more in line with Economics 101.*


----------



## phoenyx (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *That would be singularly untrue.  You just pushed one nut case source, and one rational source by a just out of college author with his first real job, that came to conclusions you like.  Most, on the other hand, do not pretend to know what will happen.
> The seattle study is particularly interesting to me, since I live in the area and know that at this point no one knows what will happen over time with the min wage increase.  And we have had every kind of study known to man.  Cons like you only believe the ones they like.  Others, who are rational, are waiting to see.
> It is early in the progress of raising minimum wages in Seattle.  All literature suggests that it will take some time to see the results.  And there is not sufficient evidence at this point to be certain of the outcome.  As in all previous minimum wage increases, the expected benefits will take a few months, and really a few years, to be truly and rationally measured.  *
> 
> ...



Good article


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.
> ...


As always - you speak from a place of complete and total ignorance. Had you read the article (and you clearly didn't) you would have seen that t*he city of Seattle hired an independent firm to study the results* and the author was sharing that firms findings (which were presented to the city of Seattle). Thank you for illustrating your profound ignorance, the fact that you comment without reading an article, and the fact that you are a blind, partisan buffoon - completely uninterested in the truth and only interested in your ideology.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.
> ...


You continue to take ignorant to unprecedented levels. Right from the opening of the article:

"The [Washington] Post recently highlighted *a new study from a group of economists who were commissioned by the city of Seattle to look at that city's minimum wage hike* from $9.96 an hour to $11.14 an hour. What they found was enlightening."

Had you actually read the article - you ignorant foreigner - you would have seen that you couldn't blame the author as it was *not* an opinion piece. He was simply sharing the findings of the *economists* who were commissioned by the city of Seattle.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the glaring flaws with liberalism - it places ideology over reality which prevents liberal's from grasping basic economics.
> ...



Bwahahahaha! The average 8-year old knows what will happen. Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are _always_ the same. Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.


----------



## phoenyx (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Ah yes, Milton Friedman, the students of whom aided Pinochet's rise to power, complete with all of his atrocities...

****_Those of us who imagine economists to be mild souls preoccupied with tedious abstractions are in for a shock from The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein's stunning, polemic re-examination of the last 30-plus years in the history of free-market capitalism. If we bought the myth of corporate globalization as a benign and bloodless process, Klein has more jolts in store. _

_The Canadian Klein is a columnist for The Nation and The Guardian and a former fellow at the London School of Economics. Her work on this, her third book, began in 2004, when she spent time in Iraq reporting on the reconstruction process for Harper's magazine. Her research is massive, meticulously documented and laid out in fluid, accessible and intriguing stories. _

_Klein's indictment revolves around Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning guru of the University of Chicago School of Economics and the brains behind the movement for unregulated corporate trade, the elimination of public services and the eradication of organized labor. _

_Klein begins in the 1950s, the depths of the Cold War, when Friedman refined his theory of pure capitalism as a counter to the threat of communism and a radical alternative to the mixed checks-and-balances system that was installed under the influence of economist John Maynard Keynes to combat the Great Depression. Under Friedman's precise mathematical theorem, the only functions permitted for government are police and armies. Everything else should be privatized. _

_With eager financial support from corporate interests, Friedman's theories made the Chicago school the powerhouse of academic economics in the U.S. The search for a live test laboratory -- a nation to erase and re-create from scratch -- did not take long. _

_*When Augusto Pinochet's military junta prepared for the takeover of Chile in 1973, Friedman's students handed him a complete plan of economic reform in advance. Friedman himself visited the new dictator, urging him to press even harder -- by dint of troops, tanks and death squads -- at selling state-owned property, utilities and services to American corporations. The plan also included eliminating public medical care, education and transportation; arresting, torturing and executing labor leaders, social workers, academics and other troublemakers; and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. The aim was to shock the entire population into stunned acquiescence to the new corporate economic policies. The term in use was "shock therapy." *_

_*The effect was to impoverish the majority of the population while enriching those in power. International corporations, being on the plush end of the equation, were delighted. The Chicago Boys, as Friedman's students were known, were ready for similar actions in Argentina, southern Brazil, Bolivia and beyond. By the 1980s large segments of Africa and Asia also had submitted to Friedman's shock treatment...*_**

Source: Caution, 'Disaster Capitalism' at Work | Naomi Klein


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

phoenyx said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


You instantly lost _all_ credibility right there with those two points alone.. You're believing a left-wing columnist (pushing propaganda) over an honest economist.

Everything stated in your post was pure propaganda and history proves as much. Just look at Cuba (the ultimate liberal utopia) - which has wallowed in extreme poverty for about 60 years now. Just look at Venezuela (another liberal utopia) - which has completely collapsed to the point that one of the most coveted items on the black market is toilet paper (yes - _toilet paper_). Liberalism ensures complete and total economic and moral collapse - to the point where even the most basic necessities are not available.

Conversely - capitalism has lifted _every_ single individual out of poverty. The standard of living has never been higher thanks to capitalism. The people who live in "poverty" in the U.S. today don't even remotely know what poverty is. The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv _with_ cable, and even a freaking game console. That is the type of "poverty" that capitalism delivers - where the poorest among us live a life of luxury that includes the most frivolous of items.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv _with_ cable, and even a freaking game console.


And yet the Right says that the "War on Poverty" has failed!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Bwahahahaha! The average 8-year old knows what will happen. Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are _always_ the same. Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.

  

The average 8-year old knows what will happen.
*How many years before you get to be 8 years old?
*
 Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. 
*Yes Indeed. 1938 during the Great Republican Depression of 1929.   Did you have a point?
*
The results are _always_ the same. 
*Yes, so far, the results have been uniformly positive.  *

Only an ignorant liberal ideologue is baffled by what will occur.
*Name some on who is baffled based on the opinion of an expert in the field.  Not a dolt like yourself.*

Here. When you learn to read, try this short piece from Brookings:

"In a speech yesterday, President Obama again called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage. Brookings scholars have continued to offer analysis and recommendations on the issue.

Senior Fellow Gary Burtless offers these six points when thinking about such a policy:

1) *The minimum wage is currently lower, in purchasing-power terms, than it was in every year from 1956 through 1983.*


2) As the President pointed out in the speech,* the minimum wage is even lower in purchasing-power terms than it was in one year of the Truman Administration *(1950).

3) Relative to the average wage paid to U.S. workers* the current minimum wage is comparatively low by historical standards. Today’s minimum wage is about 37% of the average wage; in 1968 it was a little more than 50% of the average wage*. (Source: Economic Policy Institute)

4) The empirical evidence on the effect of boosting the minimum wage, even in slack labor markets, suggests that *the adverse employment effects are small. *The adverse effects are primarily concentrated on workers who are under age 20, and those minimum-wage workers account for less than a quarter of all workers earning the minimum wage. Even for teenage workers the adverse employment impact is likely to be comparatively small.

5) Even using opponents’ estimates of the adverse employment effects of a minimum-wage hike, *low income workers as a whole end up considerably better off after the minimum wage is raised.* That is because the weekly earnings gains enjoyed by low-wage workers who remain employed is considerably bigger than the weekly earnings lost as a result of lower employment. Low-wage workers recognize this fact, which is why they support a minimum-wage hike by a sizable margin.

6) In fact, increasing the minimum wage commands broad support in the adult population. It is one of the few explicitly redistributive measures of the government that enjoys such broad popular support."
6 Facts about a Minimum Wage Increase | Brookings Institution

If you are a con, you oppose the minimum wage and any raise in it.  Because you believe what you are told to believe.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


*So, again, you are incapable of using an impartial source.  Instead, you pick the right wing web site heritage.  Let me go get you an article from a left case nut case web site to prove you wrong.  Na.  That would be dishonest, and ruin my integrity.  I will leave that to you, since you do not care in the slightest about integrity.*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv _with_ cable, and even a freaking game console.
> ...


And yet the Left declares that we need more money and benefits for those in "poverty"!!! Oops!!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



*Wrong.  Th only one pushing propoganda is you.  And that is simply normal.  Because that is what right wing nut case trolls do, which is lie a lot.*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage was implemented more than 75 years ago junior - had has been raised dozens of times ever since. The results are _always_ the same.
> ...


If the results have been "uniformly positive" then why do libtards insist that we need to keep raising the minimum wage?!? 

You continue to take ignorant to unprecedented levels.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Seriously....could you _please_ ask an adult to show you how to use this website so that my posts don't appear as your posts? You're ignorant - I don't want you taking credit for my work. And I sure as hell don't want my quotes to be attributed to you. I know it's embarrassing that you can't figure out how to use a computer or a website but just tell the adult that you're a liberal. They will immediately understand (after all - you people can't even survive on your own without government taking care of you so nobody expects you to have "advanced" skills like computers and websites if you can't even figure out how to feed yourselves without government food stamps).


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



If the results have been "uniformly positive" then why do libtards insist that we need to keep raising the minimum wage?!? 


There is no such thing as a libtard.  There is, however, such a thing aa a bat shit crazy con troll, like yourself.

If the results have been "uniformly positive" then why do libtards insist that we need to keep raising the minimum wage?!? 
*Did you ever here of inflation?
Did you assume that the cost of living has not changed over time?*

You continue to take ignorant to unprecedented levels.
*Did you ever wonder how anyone could be as ignorant as to ask the question above?
The Minimum Wage was $1.25 in the mid 1960's.  Did you believe it should have stayed at that level for the rest of time?

Really, asking that question and suggesting anyone is more stupid than yourself simply proves how stupid you are.*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *Did you ever here of inflation? Did you assume that the cost of living has not changed over time?*


Did you ever *hear* (_here_ is a spot junior, _hear_ is to listen) that kicking up the minimum wage constantly and to obscene levels (like $15 per hour) is the single biggest cause of inflation?

By the way junior - minimum wage when it was introduced in 1938 was $0.25 per hour. *Adjusted for inflation - that equals $4.23 per hour today*. So why isn't the minimum wage $4.23 per hour today? _Oops_.... How dumb do you look right now with your lame and uneducated _excuses_? Keep making shit up junior. You're only killing your own credibility (of which you have none left). Now - what country are you from?

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## phoenyx (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Only with right wingers with short attention spans. If you'd bothered to read past the 4th sentence, you would have realized she's not just a columnist, she's an author of several books. The one that was being reviewed is called "_The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". _What particularly irritates me about your 2 sentence dismissal of Katherine Dunn's review of Klein's book is that you didn't actually address any of the points she made. Have -you- written any books on capitalism? If not, you might consider put a little more effort into reading a review from a well known author on a book she wrote on the subject.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Well the program is obviously working, so why wouldn't you try to help more people?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *Did you ever here of inflation? Did you assume that the cost of living has not changed over time?  Look up the word COLA, and do your best to understand it.  *


Did you ever *hear* (_here_ is a spot junior, _hear_ is to listen) that kicking up the minimum wage constantly and to obscene levels (like $15 per hour) is the single biggest cause of inflation?
Yes.  It is a con talking point.  I here it from every con troll I run into.  So, why are you worrying about the inflation rate???  Did you think it has been too high??  Please, tell me how stupid you are again.

Thanks for the spell check, me poor ignorant con troll.  Nice to know you can perform a minimum wage job.

By the way junior - minimum wage when it was introduced in 1938 was $0.25 per hour. *Adjusted for inflation - that equals $4.23 per hour today*. So why isn't the minimum wage $4.23 per hour today? Simple me poor ignorant con troll.  That was during the great republican depression.  People did not like starving to death.  And the vast majority of people in the world are not complete ass holes like you.  Are you going to start paying me for your education, dipshit?
_Oops_.... How dumb do you look right now with your lame and uneducated _excuses_? Keep making shit up junior. You're only killing your own credibility (of which you have none left). Now - what country are you from?
*You are delusional, me boy? Stupid, and delusional?  

So, a con would listen to what he is told to believe and believe it, and suggest that all people should be happy with a minimum wage set at the same level as during the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  Or $4.25.  Because they think that workers should not be able to live.  If they starve, that is fine.  But the wealthy should only be happy if they can make at least a million, and preferably hundreds of millions, of dollars per year.  And, there is no law against it, me boy.  You can want anything you please.  The problem you have is that the rest of the world, by a large majority, think you are an ass hole and will not go along with  your small minded desires.  See, here is the thing, you are completely irrelevant.  *[/QUOTE]


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Folks....you just can't make this stuff up. This is the epitome of illiteracy when someone points out your grammar, you mockingly thank them in your response while making the _exact_ same grammatical error _again_. 

It is now crystal clear why you can't grasp basic economics. You haven't even grasped the English language yet. Economics is far beyond your aptitude.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 12, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > By the way junior - minimum wage when it was introduced in 1938 was $0.25 per hour. *Adjusted for inflation - that equals $4.23 per hour today*. So why isn't the minimum wage $4.23 per hour today?
> ...



Uh...._what_? You didn't answer the question. The minimum wage was $0.25 per hour. That was clearly deemed enough to survive off. So adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage today should be $4.23 per hour. Why are you crying like a little bitch for more?

Furthermore, not only was the Great Depression under the Dumbocrats, but 1938 was the _second_ term of FDR. It was Dumbocrats that deemed $0.25 was more than enough.

I love when you get cornered by facts. You desperately spout bizarre, idiotic, and incoherent nonsense.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 12, 2016)

By the way junior - minimum wage when it was introduced in 1938 was $0.25 per hour. *Adjusted for inflation - that equals $4.23 per hour today*. So why isn't the minimum wage $4.23 per hour today?[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Simple me poor ignorant con troll.  That was during the great republican depression.  People did not like starving to death.

Uh...._what_? You didn't answer the question.  Yes I did.  You are simply too stupid to understand the answer.   The minimum wage was $0.25 per hour. That was clearly deemed enough to survive off.  
No, not really.  People were near starvation level.  You know so little about it because you are ignorant.  What are you, me boy?  A janitor, right.  Imagine what you could be if you were not so ignorant.  But to get past ignorance, you must actually try to learn.  Which is beyond you.
Now, you were quite satisfied that people got all of .25 per hour.  Because you are a con troll, and have been told to believe that.  But the rest of us, who actually have the ability to think, felt that it was not enough.  So, guys like you lost.  Plain and simple.
COLA is what you need to understand.  As I told you earlier.  Apparently you did not bother to look it up, preferring instead to remain stupid, and ignorant.  Which you have successfully done.
 So adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage today should be $4.23 per hour. Yup, that is true.  But it makes no difference.  Because as actual thinking people, we decided it was not enough.  And raised the minimum wage over your little efforts to stop it.  Stomped you like the  little cockroaches  you are.  So, did you have a point? 
Why are you crying like a little bitch for more?  I am certainly not crying. I am quite happy with the results.  We the thinking people who care about the workers WON.  You, the con trolls of the world, who could care less about the working poor, LOST.  Funny part is that as a janitor, you got your wish and lost.  Which makes you  doubly stupid looser.

Furthermore, not only was the Great Depression under the Dumbocrats, but 1938 was the _second_ term of FDR.  So, me boy, you are a typical con troll, mindlessly trying to blame democrats for the mess that Republicans made, prior to 1929, and did nothing at all about for over 4 years as the Unemployment Rate went from 3% to 25% under a continued Republican presidency and congress.  The fools were too stupid to do anything to stop their huge mess, and simply watched until they handed it off to a democratic president, and asked him to fix it.  Which he did.  And then, as a typical con with no integrity, you actually try to blame dems for the mess caused by republicans.  Tacky, me boy.  You simply prove you have no class or integrity.
It was Dumbocrats that deemed $0.25 was more than enough.  No, it was democrats who got the first minimum wage passed, over republicans who fought it all the way.  Dems, like me, won then.  Republicans, like you, lost.  Simple as that. But democrats did not deem it enough.  It was all they could get, over republican objections due to their intent to let the workers starve.  

I love when you get cornered by facts. You desperately spout bizarre, idiotic, and incoherent nonsense.
That would be your opinion, me boy.  The opinion of a mere janitor.  A low life who impresses no one. Read above, and you may note you have cornered no one.  You see, janitors seldom do.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, a con would listen to what he is told to believe and believe it, and suggest that all people should be happy with a minimum wage set at the same level as during the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  Or $4.25.  Because they think that workers should not be able to live.  If they starve, that is fine.  But the wealthy should only be happy if they can make at least a million, and preferably hundreds of millions, of dollars per year.  And, there is no law against it, me boy.  You can want anything you please.  The problem you have is that the rest of the world, by a large majority, think you are an ass hole and will not go along with  your small minded desires.  See, here is the thing, you are completely irrelevant.


If it's not enough today why was it enough in 1938 (adjust of course) in the opinion of radical liberals like FDR? Oops....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I am certainly not crying. I am quite happy with the results.  We the thinking people who care about the workers WON.  You, the con trolls of the world, *who could care less about the working poor*, LOST.  Funny part is that as a janitor, you got your wish and lost.  Which makes you  doubly stupid looser.


I care about the U.S. Constitution and liberty. Far more important than any person or any class of people.

But here's the thing _stupid_ - if you "care" so much (as you claim over and over because you can't make a rational case for your ignorant and irrational positions) then why don't _you_ pay the working poor more? Why don't _you_ cover their expenses? Why don't _you_ pay for their healthcare? Put your money where your (big) mouth is.

Oh wait....that's right....you haven't even mastered the English language yet or figured out how to use a website. No wonder you can't get a job above minimum wage.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That would be your opinion, me boy.  The opinion of *a mere janitor*.  A low life who impresses no one. Read above, and you may note you have cornered no one.  You see, *janitors seldom do*.


Typical libtard....nothing but contempt and insults for the working class. You pretend to care about the minmum wage working man and then you have nothing but demeaning insults for the minimum wage working man. After all - the "mere" janitor is willing to work twice as hard in any given hour than your lazy and useless ass is willing to work in an entire decade.

Incidentally stupid - if I were a "mere" janitor and you were the big shot, why am I denouncing the minimum wage and why are you crying like a little bitch for it to be increased? _Oops_...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> No, it was democrats who got the first minimum wage passed, over republicans who fought it all the way.  Dems, like me, won then.  Republicans, like you, lost.  Simple as that. But democrats did not deem it enough.  *It was all they could get*, over republican objections due to their intent to let the workers starve.


Bwahahahaha! You should stop making stuff up after I embarrass you with facts. Dumbocrats (like you - very _dumb_) got it passed and set the wage. They deemed it enough. Republican's were not able to stop it (they tried). So your own side of the aisle (back before you people became completely bat-shit crazy and went off the cliff of sanity) reconized that in today's dollar - $4.23 per hour is more than acceptable. After all - a 16 year old hired for their first job does not need to earn six-figures. Speaks volumes that you are so dumb, you need that explained to you. No wonder you can't grasp basic economics.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Simple me poor ignorant...


That's _literally_ the only accurate thing you've said today. You are simple. You are ignorant (very). And you are poor. Almost as poor as your grammar....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> People were near starvation level.


And??? Employment is a voluntary agreement. If they felt they weren't making enough - they were *free* to go somewhere else (well - at least when idiotic Dumbocrat liberal policy is collapsing the economy). You cry like a little bitch over and over using emotional arguments like "people were near starvation" but you never explain what that has to do with the issue we are discussing. Maybe that's because you can't make a rational and coherent argument so you have to get off track and shed big crocodile tears.


Rshermr said:


> Now, you were quite satisfied that people got all of .25 per hour. But the rest of us, who actually have the ability to think, felt that it was not enough.


Sooooooo....then why didn't _you_ pay people more than minmum wage? You can start a business and pay people _anything_ you want to pay them. So why don't you? Too selfish? Too lazy? Too incompetent? All of the above, uh?


----------



## Markle (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > The average household in "poverty" in America has air conditioning, tv _with_ cable, and even a freaking game console.
> ...



True, the "War on "Poverty" has failed, massively.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was highly successful.  Until 2009 when Lame Duck Barack Hussein Obama forced through his Stimulus bill which gutted the successful Reform Act.


----------



## Markle (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Obama gutted nothing. Just more Right-wing lies.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, me boy, you are a typical con troll, mindlessly trying to blame democrats for the mess that Republicans made, prior to 1929, and did nothing at all about for over 4 years as the Unemployment Rate went from 3% to 25% under a continued Republican presidency and congress.  The fools were too stupid to do anything to stop their huge mess, and simply watched until they handed it off to a democratic president, and asked him to fix it.  Which he did.  And then, as a typical con with no integrity, you actually try to blame dems for the mess caused by republicans.


Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.

Piss you off that you can't deny reality no matter how hard you try? Well get this - even hard core liberal UCLA acknowledged recently that FDR's ignorant and failed liberal economic policies prolonged the Great Depression (conservative economic policy would've had that shit turned around in six months).

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > True, the "War on "Poverty" has failed, massively.
> ...


Do you have to lie in _every_ post? Can you try telling the truth just a few times now and again?

How Obama has gutted welfare reform

Obama Guts Welfare Reform

Obama's End Run on Welfare Reform, Part Two: Dismantling Workfare

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/238501-obama-kills-welfare-reform

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/288003-house-votes-to-block-obamas-welfare-work-waiver

Waiving Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients: One Year Later, Just another Law Ignored by the Obama Administration - Ways and Means


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That would be your opinion, me boy.  The opinion of *a mere janitor*.  A low life who impresses no one. Read above, and you may note you have cornered no one.  You see, *janitors seldom do*.


Typical libtard....nothing but contempt and insults for the working class. You pretend to care about the minmum   Un, I do not know about the "minmum" wage.  That would be your issue, and one we are not talking about. We have been talking about the minimum wage.  Or are you just trying to prove you are incapable of rational thought again. wage working man and then you have nothing but demeaning insults for the minimum wage working man. After all - the "mere" janitor is willing to work twice as hard in any given hour than your lazy and useless ass is willing to work in an entire decade.  No insults at all for the working man.  But yes indeed, I do have insults for any one, like yourself, who has no expertise in a subject and can not take the time to prove his accusations by finding impartial proof and providing a link to that proof. It really takes no position in life to be rational.  But you have made the choice to simply state con talking points, resting on your supposed great knowledge of the subject. Knowledge which does not exist.
You see, me boy, I simply state the truth.  You are indeed a janitor, and you are indeed ignorant.  If you were a corporate kingpin, it would make no difference. You would still be ignorant.  I can tell you about working hard, as a self made person with my family and my self raised in working class conditions.  And I do not consider myself an expert in anything.  Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.  And I always provide impartial proof for my positions.  Always.  Because I believe that those I discuss issues with deserve that I provide impartial reasoned responses.  *While you, me boy, simply blast away with your totally unfounded bat shit crazy conservative talking points.  *

Incidentally stupid - if I were a "mere" janitor and you were the big shot, why am I denouncing the minimum wage and why are you crying like a little bitch for it to be increased? _Oops_...
Incidentally, janitor, if you had a brain why would you be the person denouncing the raising of the minimum wage and crying like a baby about it being raised again.  I am quite happy, me boy.  Because I  care about others besides myself, and I do not, like you, allow others to tell me what to believe.  I spent years studying economics, while you spent days learning the talking points of the con.  See the difference.  Me and millions like me simply demand truth, and do not allow anyone to tell us what to believe.  And as for working people and minimum wage, there are millions of pages of research and economic theory surrounding the subject.  The insult, me boy, is any clown like yourself who simply waits to be told what to believe and spouts it as truth.  Others try to spend their time finding the facts, while you simply do the bidding of the wealthy cons who tell you what to believe, what to say, and what to do.  And it is indeed true that we have contempt for your lack of effort to find the truth, and the total contempt you have shown, and that you have, for the working class.  
Fact is, I have no idea what you really are.  I know what I am, which is a retired person who had nothing and worked hard to achieve what I could for my family.  I pretend no absolute knowledge, but simply post what I can prove. 
What matters about you, on the other hand,  is your lack of interest in fact, your total inability to show true concern for the working man, and your total dedication to the wealthy cons who direct your beliefs and actions.   It is what makes you a con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

]No, it was democrats who got the first minimum wage passed, over republicans who fought it all the way.  Dems, like me, won then.  Republicans, like you, lost.  Simple as that. But democrats did not deem it enough.  *It was all they could get*, over republican objections due to their intent to let the workers starve.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
Bwahahahaha!  There you go again showing you are stupid.   You should stop making stuff up after I embarrass you with facts. You nave no facts, me boy.  Just right wing talking points.  Dumbocrats (like you - very _dumb_) got it passed and set the wage.  Yes, we won, you lost.  Makes you so mad, eh.   They deemed it enough.  You do not say who "they" were, but dems did not deem it enough.  That is simply you posting another con talking point.   Republican's were not able to stop it (they tried).  Yes, as always, republicans tried to allow the working class in this country suffer.  And you are actually proud of it.   So your own side of the aisle (back before you people became completely bat-shit crazy and went off the cliff of sanity)  Hardly. We cared then, and we still care, about the working class.  We believed then, and we believe now, that they are the backbone of this country. reconized Perhaps remedial english is in store for you.  that in today's dollar - $4.23 per hour is more than acceptable.   Hardly.  As soon as you can prove that you spent a year or more living on that amount, I will listen to you.  What you say is indeed bat shit crazy, completely uncaring, and proof that you believe what you are told to believe.  You love the idea of starving workers.  You are therefore a confirmed ass hole.  After all - a 16 year old hired for their first job does not need to earn six-figures.  Really, me boy.  You are suggesting that minimum wage gets someone to six figures.  You are indeed showing you are an idiot.   Speaks volumes that you are so dumb, you need that explained to you. No wonder you can't grasp basic economics.  No, not at all.  It does prove you are a con troll, however.  and uninterested in fact. Insults from a janitor with no facts of any kind are hardly proof of anything, except in a very weak mind.  Which you do have.

Ah, the unsupported drivel of a con troll.  Everyone knows how unhappy you are that the working class got a subsistence wage, and starved less often.  And now how unhappy that your wealthy con bosses are pushing you because they have lost again, with a new minimum wage increase passed by those who care.  We understand you are mad at the world, me boy.  It is a symptom of a sick mind.  Yours, of course.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Simple me poor ignorant...
> ...


Wow.  That was profound.  The opinion of an ignorant con troll.  No links, no facts, just insults.  How profound.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

Hardly satisfied, me lying con troll.  But at least a win to get something, and that it could now be raised.  You, on the other hand, are quite unhappy about it.  You keep raising the subject time after time. But the rest of us, who actually have the ability to think, felt that it was not enough.[/QUOTE]
Sooooooo....then why didn't _you_ pay people more than minmum wage?   We have.  You did not try to find out.  Because you are ignorant and lazy.  You can start a business and pay people _anything_ you want to pay them. So why don't you? Too selfish? Too lazy? Too incompetent? All of the above, uh?  Funny.  An idiot trying to toss out insults.  Again!
You are indeed, too selfish, lazy, and incompetent to understand the business world.  You only pay more than others when you want your expenses to be so high they put you out of business.  Another lesson in basic business administration for you, no charge.
If you want to pay the working class better, you need to require all business to do so.  Then you can pay a higher wage and survive.  Try to work that out in your little weak mind.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 13, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...


Where are the links ???


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


See supra.

Pot calling kettle black.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > So, me boy, you are a typical con troll, mindlessly trying to blame democrats for the mess that Republicans made, prior to 1929, and did nothing at all about for over 4 years as the Unemployment Rate went from 3% to 25% under a continued Republican presidency and congress.  The fools were too stupid to do anything to stop their huge mess, and simply watched until they handed it off to a democratic president, and asked him to fix it.  Which he did.  And then, as a typical con with no integrity, you actually try to blame dems for the mess caused by republicans.


Sorry cupcake...Look, I know you are a homosexual.  That is fine with me.  I just happen to not be.  so, quit calling me your cute little names.  .conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*".  Actually, you just proved you know nothing about economic history.  Another case of a person with no knowledge posting con talking points.  In 1921-22 you had a major short recession, which cons are still talking about.  Then, they did the preparatory work for the great republican recession of 1929.   Republicans had the senate, the house, and the presidency until 1933.  And sat and watched the the unemployment rate go to unheard of levels.  From 3% to 25%.  And did nothing at all.   So, me lying con troll, republicans were in control through the early 1930's, and then handed the economy off to democrats who fixed it.  
 Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.  Another complete lie, of course.  Truth means nothing to you, does it, dipshit.  The great republican depression of *1929 *started and reached it's peak under republican rule.  As all rational people know.  So, dipshit, please tell me how a democrat can start a recession nearly 5 years before he is in power.  And lying does not count.

Piss you off that you can't deny reality no matter how hard you try?  Hardly, because your reality is not real.  That is simple to prove.   Well get this - even hard core liberal UCLA acknowledged recently that FDR's ignorant and failed liberal economic policies prolonged the Great Depression (conservative economic policy would've had that shit turned around in six months).  You surprisingly picked the only economists out of thousands of economists who tried to make a name for themselves with a new set of theories.  Truth is, it has not worked out well for them.  But, every single bat shit crazy con web site and talking head in the world is trying to make this one teamed pair of economists out to be the only ones who know what happened.  But I could give you a hundred who disagree.  Truth is, republicans made the great republican recession of 1929,watched it develop, and gave it to dems to fix. 
What you are too ignorant to know is that there are few economic truths without a few outlier economists who try to make a name for themselves with a new opposing theory of that truth.  Always. 
Top 5 Causes of the Great Depression Shows the causes of the great depression were republican errors, with one exception which was weather related.
Great Depression Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Great Depression A good non technical description of the great depression even you could understand if you were actually interested.
The Depression in the U.S.--An Overview And another.
 
Market Crashes: The Great Depression (1929) | Investopedia And another

Here is the funny thing, patriot.  You give us one outlier excuse for the great depression of 1929 and I can give you a thousand expert sources that see it differently.  It was a clearly a depression caused under republican leadership.  And it was clearly eliminated by democrats, with NO republican help.  And there is nothing your con talking points, lies, and efforts to show alternative views, can do to change that.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Do you have to lie in _every_ post? Can you try telling the truth just a few times now and again?
The only liar, me boy, is you.  Check the mirror, and you will see a liar.
Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources, eh.

How Obama has gutted welfare reform   Good source except IT IS AN OPITHE NION PIECE, BY A PRINCIPLE OF  THE RIGHT WING NUT CASE THINK TANK, HERITAGE.  No impartiality here.  

Obama Guts Welfare Reform       The daily Signal. A nut case far right conservative web site that spends it time attacking only democrats.  No impartiality here.  

Obama's End Run on Welfare Reform, Part Two: Dismantling Workfare   the great well kown heritage foundation, a right wing nut case source of hate talk about democrats.  No impartiality here. 

Obama kills welfare reform  An opinion piece by Dick Morris, an extremely well known far right nut case and con boss.  No impartiality here.

House votes 246-181 to block Obama's welfare-work waiver rule An opinion piece by Pete Kasperowicz, a well known right wing contributor to the blaze, the washington times, and a bunch of other nut case far right web sites. No impartiality here. 

Waiving Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients: One Year Later, Just another Law Ignored by the Obama Administration - Ways and Means      The ways and means committee is an article by republicans only. A simplistic attack piece.    No impartiality here.     

So, what looked like an excellent effort by patriot to find impartial sources proved to be a trip to a nut case con web site to get six, yes six, totally partial and right wing agenda driven sources, which Patriot lyingly indicated were impartial.  Really, me boy, try a little honesty some time.
If you are not agenda driven and actually want the truth, there are fact check organizations who have reported on the subject.  And all have said that Obama did not gut anything, and that it is simply an attempt by the far right to attack him.  Here is abc news fact checking the subject:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?
They refute what Patriot and his con troll palls say completely.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


That would be a lie:
Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And I do not consider myself an expert in anything.  Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.


Don't worry - nobody else considers you an "expert" in _anything_ either.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources


You are proven wrong in every post and all you ever do is cry like a little bitch that the source isn't "impartial". You've literally claimed that for _hundreds_ of sources. You refuse to accept fact and you pretend that any source which doesn't support your blind ignorance isn't "impartial". You lose, _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That would be a lie:
> Fact Check: Does Obama Want to 'Gut' Welfare Reform?


ABC News?!? 

*"*That's not an 'impartial' source*"*


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a lie:
> ...



ABC news im an impartial source to all but con trolls, who think fox is impartial.  Sorry, me boy.  You loose.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Because I  care about others besides myself


If that were even remotely true then _you_ would be helping the poor personally rather than crying like a little bitch that a business which someone _else_ built should be giving away their money.

You literally just proved what a selfish, greedy, lazy little bitch that you are...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


ABC News?!? 

*"*That's not an 'impartial' source*"* 

Sorry pumpkin....you don't get to decide what constitutes an "impartial" source. I pasted half a dozen links proving you're an _ignorant_ *liar*.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And I do not consider myself an expert in anything.  Unlike, you, no one tells me what to believe.
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Because I  care about others besides myself


If that were even remotely true then _you_ would be helping the poor personally rather than crying like a little bitch that a business which someone _else_ built should be giving away their money.

You literally just proved what a selfish, greedy, lazy little bitch that you are..

Right.  Unlike you, who thinks that:
1.  Those in the Great Republican Recession of 1929 should not have gotten a minimum wage even as low as .25 per hour.
2.  Believe that any increases in the minimum wage should never, ever happen.
3.  Believe that the wants of the wealthy should be taken care of with no thought for the less wealthy.
4.  Believe that the company owner should get rich, and the workers who made it possible should get as little as possible.
Got it.  And you are not at all selfish and greedy.  Just delusional.

So, based on the fact that I am so concerned about you, let me provide another lesson for you:
Now try to understand this, me ignorant con troll.  You see, 
1.Business owners have enough money to start and oversee a business.  
2. The Business Owner makes money running their business.
3.  The business owner does not give away his money, he is instead required to pay for the help that runs his business. 
4,  The business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich.  

So, you have proven over and over that you :
1.  do not care about the worker
2,  Would be just as happy if the worker had to work many jobs to provide for his family.
3.  Really do not care that they may starve.
4.  Are, in the technical sense, a complete ass hole.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Wow.  That was profound.  The opinion of an ignorant con troll.  No links, no facts, just insults.  How profound.


That's bizarre coming from a jack-ass who almost never posts a single link. Where was your "link" in post #981? Where was your "link" in post #983? You're so dumb - you defeat your own argument.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Can you _please_ have an adult show you how to use this website?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The point is, that you are *only an expert at janitorial supplies and such*.  You just are *too stupid* to understand that.


There goes Rshermr again - "champion" of the working man demeaning and insulting the hard working American. He claims to "care" about others and then demeans just about _every_ blue collar job there is out there (all while mooching off of those poor working folks because he doesn't want to hold a job).


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

member: 37424"]Lets check and see if you, a con troll, used any impartial sources[/QUOTE]
You are proven wrong in every post and all you ever do is cry like a little bitch that the source isn't "impartial". You've literally claimed that for _hundreds_ of sources. You refuse to accept fact and you pretend that any source which doesn't support your blind ignorance isn't "impartial". You lose, _stupid_.   [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
That would be the opinion of a con troll who has achieved nothing in life.  You are not, me boy, relevant.  At all.
You posted SIX sources that are well known right wing nut case sources.  Every single one.  I post abc news, and you say it is a partial source.  You just proved you are a nut case.  Totally unable to make rational conversation.  And a total con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

Don't worry - nobody else considers you an "expert" in _anything_ either.
Good deal.  Because I am not.  The point is, that you are only an expert at janitorial supplies and such.  You just are too stupid to understand that.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Can you _please_ have an adult show you how to use this website?
Adult?  Not you, then. I will do that as soon as you have an adult help you get your head out of your ass.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you want to pay the working class better, you need to require all business to do so.  Then you can pay a higher wage and survive.  Try to work that out in your little weak mind.


That's not even _remotely_ true. You have less understanding of economics than a rodent. 

Lets say you run a septic service business. If you pay the highest wages to attract the best people (the most reliable, the most professional, the most knowledgeable, etc.) then you will bring in the most customers. What you lose in higher wages you make up in _volume_. As your competitors being to go out of business, you can raise your prices a bit so that you don't even need the volume to make up the labor costs.

I know, I know - this is too complex for you. Ask the closest adult for help here.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


For the love of God....can you *please* have an adult show you how to use this site?!?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, that you are *only an expert at janitorial supplies and such*.  You just are *too stupid* to understand that.
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Right.  Unlike you, who thinks that:
> 1.  Those in the Great Republican Recession of 1929 should not have gotten a minimum wage even as low as .25 per hour.



Yeah....um...._where_ exactly did I say that?!? I wasn't around during the Great Dumbocrat Depression so I cannot comment on whether or not $0.25 per hour was a reasonable wage. However, since the greedy Dumbocrats (under FDR) handed it out, I have to assume it was actually way above what was necessary given that that is the history of the greedy Dumbocrat Party.


Rshermr said:


> 2.  Believe that any increases in the minimum wage should never, ever happen.


Well that's not true at all. You're caught lying in every post you make. Adjusted for inflation, the current minimum wage of today should be $4.23 per hour.


Rshermr said:


> 3.  Believe that the wants of the wealthy should be taken care of with no thought for the less wealthy.


Again - you continue to *lie*. Which is proof in itself that you're getting your ass kicked with facts in this debate and so you have to resort to lying. I don't believe _anybody_ should be "taken care of" through government. Not the wealthy. Not the middle class. Not the poor. The wealthy and the middle class shouldn't need any assistance. The poor should get it through charities. But greedy Dumbocrats like you want guaranteed, unlimited "assistance" which you could never get through charities - so like a thug, you demand it be done at the barrel of a gun.


Rshermr said:


> 4.  Believe that the company owner should get rich, and the workers who made it possible should get as little as possible.


Again - another *lie*. You're like Hitlery Clinton - a _pathological_ liar. I believe everyone should earn exactly what they are worth. Like an ignorant Fidel Castro, Cuban socialist - you think everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of their talent, their effort, and their value. Most of that stems from your ignorance of basic economics. The rest of it comes from your ignorance of swallowing liberal propaganda.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> 4,  The business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich.


And??? Do you have a point here? Is the worker _supposed_ to get "rich" in your ignorant mind? 

The business owner took all the risk _and_ has all of the responsibility. They deserve to get as wealthy as they are capable of getting. If the "worker" wants to accumulate wealth like the business owner, then they need to start their own damn business and become a business owner themselves. That's how life works, _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And you are indeed a janitor.  Not my fault.  You could have done more with yourself had you tried.
> 
> So, a personal question.  You post all day and all night.  Don't you think you should get a real job at some point?



Wait...what? I though I had a _real_ job? I thought I was a "janitor"?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to pay the working class better, you need to require all business to do so.  Then you can pay a higher wage and survive.  Try to work that out in your little weak mind.


That's not even _remotely_ true. You have less understanding of economics than a rodent. 
Funny.  Says the janitor.  It is found in economic history, and in business classes, me boy.  Things you are unable to relate to.
Lets say you run a septic service business. If you pay the highest wages to attract the best people (the most reliable, the most professional, the most knowledgeable, etc.) then you will bring in the most customers. What you lose in higher wages you make up in _volume_. As your competitors being to go out of business, you can raise your prices a bit so that you don't even need the volume to make up the labor costs.

I know, I know - this is too complex for you. Ask the closest adult for help here
No, that was so stupid it was like finger nails on a chalk board.  
Actually, that is again your opinion.  That of a janitor.  Here is a business lesson for you again.  It is not Economics, me boy.  It is taught in business classes, which you have insufficient intelligence to be allowed in to.  
If you run a septic service, nearly all of your business will come to you based on price.  And you will be out of business soon if you raise your rates.  So you will not.  Until the competitors raise their pay rates.  And you do too.  And that will only happen when they, and you, are forced to raise your pay rates.  
Patriot, you need to stick to janitorial supplies and similar simple subjects.

.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

4,  The business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich.[/QUOTE]    {/QUOTE]
And??? Do you have a point here? Is the worker _supposed_ to get "rich" in your ignorant mind? 

The business owner took all the risk _and_ has all of the responsibility. They deserve to get as wealthy as they are capable of getting. If the "worker" wants to accumulate wealth like the business owner, then they need to start their own damn business and become a business owner themselves. That's how life works, _stupid_.
The point was so simple that only a congenital idiot could miss it.  It was that the business owner can generally afford to pay, but prefers wealth.
Oh.  I forgot.  You are a congenital idiot.  Sorry I went beyond your ability to comprehend.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And you are indeed a janitor.  Not my fault.  You could have done more with yourself had you tried.
> ...



Wait...what? I though I had a _real_ job? I thought I was a "janitor"?
As any rational person would understand, I was questioning your lack of work hours.  If you are satisfied with being a janitor, seems fair to me.  Would not be enough for me, but it seems to be for you.  Got it.  And, being stupid is generally a congenital issue.  Nothing much you can do about it.  Makes a person want to have someone tell you what to believe, avoid all that hard work of study, reading, and on and on.  Just listen and believe, a simple life.  Stupid, but simple.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> No, that was so stupid it was like finger nails on a chalk board.
> Actually, that is again your opinion.  That of a janitor.  Here is a business lesson for you again.  It is not Economics, me boy.  It is taught in business classes, which you have insufficient intelligence to be allowed in to.
> If you run a septic service, nearly all of your business will come to you based on price.  And you will be out of business soon if you raise your rates.  So you will not.  Until the competitors raise their pay rates.  And you do too.  And that will only happen when they, and you, are forced to raise your pay rates.
> Patriot, you need to stick to janitorial supplies and similar simple subjects.


I just _owned_ you with *facts*, fool. I say you could raise your prices *after* you had put many of your competitors out of business. Again, you can't read (or write), you can't use a website, and you don't understand basic business. I proved you wrong. Deal with it.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> 4,  The business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich.
> And??? Do you have a point here? Is the worker _supposed_ to get "rich" in your ignorant mind?
> 
> The business owner took all the risk _and_ has all of the responsibility. They deserve to get as wealthy as they are capable of getting. If the "worker" wants to accumulate wealth like the business owner, then they need to start their own damn business and become a business owner themselves. That's how life works, _stupid_.
> ...


Still haven't figured out how to use a simple website. Still haven't explained what your point was. You said "the business owner often gets rich, the worker never gets rich". So? What is your point?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


And once again...this buffoon is so incapable of figuring out how to use a _simple_ website that he makes it look like my posts are his posts. 

Is there an adult anywhere near you that you could ask for help? Maybe they could also help you figure out your meds while they help you learn to use a _simple_ website?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

again - "champion" of the working man demeaning and insulting the hard working American. Hardly.  You are not anything but a con troll, and you need to be knocked down.  So I do it for entertainment.  He claims to "care" about others and then demeans just about _every_ blue collar job there is out there (all while mooching off of those poor working folks because he doesn't want to hold a job).
You are indeed delusional.  I mooch off of no one.  I paid social security at the maximum for over 40 years, and most of the time at the maximum rate.  What social security pays me now is a return on that payment which supported others before me.  I am certain I paid well over any amount you will ever pay in to social security.  As you probably know.
Really, that you are stupid is obvious.  But not your fault.  It is congenital.  Not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Is that it.  You want to suggest my method of using this site is wrong.  Here is an idea, me boy.  Fuck off.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

So Patriot, the angry janitor, says:
Wait...what? I though I had a _real_ job? I thought I was a "janitor"?
As any rational person would understand, I was questioning your lack of work hours.  If you are satisfied with being a janitor, seems fair to me.  Would not be enough for me, but it seems to be for you.  Got it.  And, being stupid is generally a congenital issue.  Nothing much you can do about it.  Makes a person want to have someone tell you what to believe, avoid all that hard work of study, reading, and on and on.  Just listen and believe, a simple life.  Stupid, but simple.[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]
Is there an adult anwhere near you that you could ask for help? Maybe they could also help you figure out your meds while they help you learn to use a _simple_ website? 

As soon as you find out what impartial sources are, and start using them, I will try to understand your lame comments regarding usage of this site.  In the interim, perhaps you could try to make an economic argument, and drop the really ignorant personal attacks.  
But for now, I have a football game to go watch.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Is that it.  You want to suggest my method of using this site is wrong.  Here is an idea, me boy.  Fuck off.


Oh I'm not "suggesting" - your dumb ass can't figure out how to use a simple freaking website. You keep making my posts look like they are _your _posts. It's ok though - based on the content of your posts - we've all figured out that you're simply not that bright.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> and you need to be knocked down.


Yep....that sounds like a typical ignorant libtard. Anyone who posts facts and speaks the truth is a danger to their socialist ideology so they need to be "knocked down".

Lucky for me - Rshermr here couldn't knock down a toddler.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.


None of your "facts" are ever facts, but you knew that already!


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


The lies just keep on comimg. Just because the Right lie in packs does not make their lies any less of a lie1

Does Obama’s Plan ‘Gut Welfare Reform’?

Romney’s ad also distorts the facts when it says that under President Obama’s plan “you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.” *The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.*

Under the new policy, *states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. *States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.

*Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program*, told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,” said Haskins,co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. *“Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.*


----------



## regent (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.
> ...


A certain percentage of these board posters have no idea of facts, and that is who some posters are posting for. They create their own history and apply labels at will, knowing little of either.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> The lies just keep on comimg. Just because the Right lie in packs does not make their lies any less of a lie1
> 
> Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have *unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules*. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”


You just *proved* that I was telling the truth!


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

regent said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


In other words - they accept reality instead of ignoring it in favor of ideology as liberals do...


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Aug 13, 2016)

regent said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



HAHAH, I just owned you on your assertion that Hoover was not a progressive in the FDR thread.......talk about not knowing facts....and just applying labels....you probably believe in the southern strategy and all that bullshit too.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Is that it.  You want to suggest my method of using this site is wrong.  Here is an idea, me boy.  Fuck off.
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The lies just keep on comimg. Just because the Right lie in packs does not make their lies any less of a lie1
> ...


If that lie were true you would not have edited the rest of his quote!!!


edthecynic said:


> “*I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,” said Haskins*, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. *“Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.*


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The lies just keep on comimg. Just because the Right lie in packs does not make their lies any less of a lie1
> ...


You just *proved* that I was telling the truth!

Jesus you are stupid.  Do you hit your hand with a hammer to prove that you love black and blue.  Jesus, no me boy.  Hour stupid must hurt.  What the post proved was that you were lying again.  See the difference.  Agreeing with you is one thing, proving you are lying is quite another.  You just kicked your own ass.  Funny.
There you are, doing the happy dance, after finding the sentence that was proven untrue.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.[/QUOTE]
None of your "facts" are ever facts, but you knew that already![/QUOTE]
A certain percentage of these board posters have no idea of facts, and that is who some posters are posting for. They create their own history and apply labels at will, knowing little of either.[/QUOTE  [/QUOTE]
In other words - they accept reality instead of ignoring it in favor of ideology as liberals do.
Really, me boy.  Everyone knows you do not accept reality.  You do not use impartial sources, preferring agenda driven con sources.  We all know you.  And you are a weak minded janitor who is a part time con troll with no ability to look at anything in a rational way, and is obviously butt stupid.  And posts con talking points.  And tries to change history.  And likes being told what to believe and what to do.  In other words, to shorten the whole thing, you are a typical con.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section and highlighted the part that proved I was telling the *truth* and you were spewing liberal propaganda.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.
> None of your "facts" are ever facts, but you knew that already!
> A certain percentage of these board posters have no idea of facts, and that is who some posters are posting for. They create their own history and apply labels at will, knowing little of either.
> In other words - they acceMercedes 380 SL backed up over the top of a $300,000 Ferrari  reality instead of ignoring it in favor of ideology as liberals do.
> Really, me boy.  Everyone knows you do not accept reality.  You do not use impartial sources, preferring agenda driven con sources.  We all know you.  And you are a weak minded janitor who is a part time con troll with no ability to look at anything in a rational way, and is obviously butt stupid.  And posts con talking points.  And tries to change history.  And likes being told what to believe and what to do.  In other words, to shorten the whole thing, you are a typical con.


Another well done post I see... 

Why do you keep screaming about "janitors" when you can't even figure out how to use a simple website?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 13, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry cupcake....conservatives were in complete control during the 1920's and we had the "*Roaring 20's*". Liberals were in complete control during the 1930's and we got the "*Great Depression*". Those are the *facts* and they are indisputable.
> ...


Now, that would be no problem at all if you would use impartial sources.  But when you finally tried, you actually used three agenda driven nut case con sources.  That would be like me going out and quoting something from moveon.org.  See the problem, me boy.  Or is it too complex.  You see, I never ever use agenda driven sites from either side, because I have integrity..  You, on the other hand, used six of them with no impartial ones.  Because you have NO integrity.  Now, that is the truth.  And it is simple to prove. And it conclusively proves you have no integrity at all.  Which, of course, is redundant, since you are a 
con troll.  If you want me to change your occupation, to a person with a college degree, that will require that you take some tests.  And, without any doubt at all, you would fail those tests.  So, that is a waste of time.  But I am sure you would rather just have your little pee wee brain fed con dogma, which you can then believe to be true.  Because you have a weak mind.  And, since lying and being wrong are all fixable in your little world simply by making claims, true or false, what the hell.  It is easy.  Kind of like becoming a janitor.  Why waste all those hours, weeks, and years studying.  And reading.  And taking tests.  And all the other hard things you would have to do to actually learn something.
Relative to screaming about janitors, I think you should have your hearing checked.  Though I think your problem is more likely your little tiny brain. Cause I am not screaming at all.  I just think that your are funny.  Here you are a janitor and you make statements like you think you know something.  Though, your statements are all perfectly in line with con talking points and bat shit crazy con web sites and fox and other nut case con sources.  And I always appreciate a good laugh.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you want me to *change your occupation, to a person with a college degree*, that will require that you take some tests.


"Person with a college degree" is *not* an occupation. 

1.) What country are you from (it's painfully clear that English is _not_ your native language)?

2.) What grade did you drop out of school?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Because you have a weak mind.  Why waste all those hours, weeks, and years studying.  And reading.  And taking tests.  And all the other hard things you would have to do to actually learn something.


Maybe if you would spend hours, weeks, and years "studying" you could figure out how to use this _simple_ website.


----------



## Markle (Aug 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You need to do a bit more research before answering.  The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was gutted.

Your denial...and ignorance is duly noted.  Many thanks!

*Obama kills welfare reform*

By Dick Morris - 07/17/12 10:07 PM EDT

Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.

Obama kills welfare reform


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section


And edited out the rest that contradicted you.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 14, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Toe-sucker Dickless MoreAss, you can't be serious!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The poor ignorant con troll brings up a source called Dick Morris.  Morris has a reputation a mile and a half long as a con nut case.  Total dipshit.  Never saw a con talking point he did not like.  Spends all his time on Fox and the bat shit crazy con web sites. 
Here is some info from Sourcewatch about Morris, the sex criminal:
*"Dick Morris*, now a Republican, was political consultant for 20 years to DemocraticPresident Bill Clinton. Morris, who resigned his position in 1996 due to allegations that he had engaged the services of a prostitute, was again the subject of similar circumstances in April 2007.
On August 29, 1996, Morris announced his resignation "hours before President Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention after _The New York Post_ and the _Star_[2], "a supermarket tabloid, published allegations" by "suddenly famous Virginia call girl" Sherry Rowland, a $200-an-hour prostitute, who said "that she had a long-running relationship with Morris." Rowland said that "Republicans had nothing to do with it."

"As for Morris's downfall, Rowlands said: 'Someone as intelligent as he is should have kept his lip buttoned when he unzipped his pants. I mean, how can you maneuver worlds, and he can't even control what he's doing in his own room with a paid lady?'" At the time, Morris "declined to address the allegations". [3]

In April 2007, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam, named Randall L. Tobias, "the top foreign aid adviser in the State Department", who "became the most prominent person on the list to be publicly identified when he resigned after acknowledging to ABC News that he was among Ms. Palfrey’s clients," Eric Lipton reported April 27, 2007, in the _New York Times_.

Palfrey "included in a court filing and posted on her Web site the man's photo and tax records. Dick Morris, the television commentator and former adviser to President Bill Clinton, who resigned in 1996 after reports that he was seeing a prostitute, was also a customer, Ms. Palfrey’s lawyer has said in court. Mr. Morris has denied the accusation," Lipton wrote.

Additionally, on April 27, 2007, Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, said that he "filed notice that he intends to depose political consultant Dick Morris in a separate civil proceeding. Morris would not comment.""
Dick Morris - SourceWatch

Morris has a wrap sheet about a mile long, with scandals of all colors.  And that is what the nut case con used as a fucking source.  Tells you all you need to know.
If you follow the link I provided, you can spend hours reading about the scandals and dirty tricks this clown has been involved with.  So, this is what the con mind goes out to find when you suggest they find an impartial source.  Dipshits.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


And you use Dick Morris as a source? That would be the most partial, crazy nut case conservative source it is possible to find.  Congratulations.  You just proved you are a con troll.  Not that we did not already know it.  Clown has a wrap sheet a mile long, from sex scandals to email creation with massive lies, to working for the cigarette Industry and lying like a rug for them, and on and on and on.  Nice job, dipshit.  Maybe I should go find an article from moveon.org.  But then I care about my integrity.  Obviously you do not.  dipshit.

Talk:Dick Morris - SourceWatch

This is hilarious! Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris may join the Trump campaign.
Trump Campaign In Talks With DICK MORRIS

*The Hill Dumps Dick Morris After He Takes Job At National Enquirer
The Hill Dumps Dick Morris After He Takes Job At National Enquirer
*
The short version is simply that Dick Morris is one of the dirtiest con trolls and dishonest conservative clowns in the known world.  Great selection for an impartial source, and a toe sucker at that.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Dude....you were _caught_ *lying* for Obama (yet _again_). Just accept it. I posted half a dozen articles proving it - the one article you posted to dispute it actually proved it as well, and now Markle has proved it too. Morris worked for Bill Clinton (_clearly_ a Dumbocrat) and even _he_ admits it.

You are one of the most dishonest partisan hacks on USMB. You can never admit anything that Obama does.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And you use Dick Morris as a source? That would be the most partial, crazy nut case conservative source it is possible to find.  Congratulations.  You just proved you are a con troll.




So far you have yet to accept _any_ source in the world. Every single source posted - whether it be _hundreds_ of news articles or people - you declare all of it to be "partial". Even though Dick Morris is a Dumbocrat who worked for Bill Clinton.

You are the biggest _tool_ in USMB _history_. But what else should we expect from a person not bright enough to learn the English language or capable of figuring out how to use a simple website. Poor guy...no wonder you need government to survive. Even people with severe mental retardation are more _capable_ than you. They can at least use a website.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section
> ...


So if that were true (and it's *not*) then your article contradicted itself and is a completely unreliable source. Why do you post unreliable sources? Can't find anything reliable to support your *lies*? Barack Obama *illegally* altered the welfare reform laws signed into law by Bill Clinton after being passed by Congress. Only Congress can make, alter, or abolish laws. They did no such thing to the welfare reform law and yet Obama illegally usurped the Constitution and removed the work requirement.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Morris has a wrap sheet about a mile long, with scandals of all colors. If you follow the link I provided, you can spend hours reading about the scandals and dirty tricks this clown has been involved with.


Well _duh_....he's a Dumbocrat who worked for the Clinton's. Of course he's going to have "a wrap sheet a mile long with scandals of all colors". The Clinton's have a wrap sheet ten million miles long with scandals of colors that don't even exist yet. And that's who you want to stick in the Oval Office. Really illustrates what a piece of shit you are and how you lack all integrity. But hey - for you it's all about what you can steal from _other_ people.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Morris has a wrap sheet about a mile long, with scandals of all colors. If you follow the link I provided, you can spend hours reading about the scandals and dirty tricks this clown has been involved with.


Well _duh_....he's a Dumbocrat who worked for the Clinton's.   Morris has worked for  republicans willing to pay him for the past 20 years.  Most importantly, he has been working for Trump for some time.  To prove your statement that he works for democrats is a lie, read the following:
*"Dick Morris says he's been advising Donald Trump*
By LOUIS NELSON
06/27/16 08:16 AM EDT
*Dick Morris is advising Donald Trump, he said in an interview published Monday, revealing to the Daily Caller that he’s been peppering the Manhattan billionaire with advice on a daily basis."*

Read more: Dick Morris says he's been advising Donald Trump

So, there you go Patriot.  Proving you are wrong, and lying about your friend Dick Morris. 

  Of course he's going to have "a wrap sheet a mile long with scandals of all colors". Right, the Clintons, caused his toe sucking whore problems, and though he has been paid by republicans and republican causes for the past 20 years, we should believe he is a democrat.  Really, me boy., you are backing a horse that can not win, and just got caught lying like a rug.  
. Really illustrates what a piece of shit you are and how you lack all integrity.
Right.  Suggesting you provide a source that is impartial and not a far right nut case con criminal source. shows low integrity on my part.  Me boy, useing Dick Morris as a source does not pass the giggle test.  Nice try,   But you lost another, big time.  Not even close. 
But hey - for you it's all about what you can steal from _other_ people.
Right.  Unfounded, and untrue, personal attacks are what you are all about.  As a con troll, that is NORMAL.  But, what the hell.  You like the toe sucker and being a con troll, will use him.  You have no class.

Personal scandals:
"As for Morris's downfall, Rowlands said: "Someone as intelligent as he is should have kept his lip buttoned when he unzipped his pants. I mean, how can you maneuver worlds, and he can't even control what he's doing in his own room with a paid lady?"

"Morris's resignation was announced hours before President Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last Thursday night. His departure came after the Star, a supermarket tabloid, published allegations by the $200-an-hour prostitute that she had a long-running relationship with Morris. The Star, which says it paid Rowlands less than $50,000 for the story, made her available to "Hard Copy." 
WashingtonPost.com: The Hooker, Line and Sinker

_The National Enquirer_, a famous supermarket tabloid, has hired political pundit Dick Morris, the star of a famous  prostitution scandal. (Now that's synergy!) Morris, who will serve as the paper's chief political commentator and correspondent,
The National Enquirer Hires Dick Morris
Wow, Patriot.  You really don't care what your source is, as long as it supports your views.  

From 2006 until 2013 he was a paid Fox whore.  Until even they could not keep him around:
"No single human made as many *wrong, botched, bogus, and stupid predictions* about the 2012 election as Dick Morris. Making fun of them, by campaign's end, hardly seemed fair. The once-relevant strategist predicted a Romney landslide and aRepublican Senate for reasons that seemed ludicrous at the time. My personal favorite Morris "analysis" was that Tom Smith, the already-forgotten energy company magnate who ran against Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, had "powered to a small lead," when no credible poll ever, ever gave a lead to Smith."
Fox News Ends the Dick Morris Era

Really, you tried to make Morris a democratic problem.  You have failed.  Morris would gladly take money from the devil himself, if he could.  Pretty much supports whatever he is paid to support.  And worked for Fox, multiple con causes, against Hillary for republicans, and generally for republicans and their causes for the past 20 years.  Like you, he cares nothing about truth, or honor, or class, or integrity.  He is  a paid whore.  You, on the other hand, are simply a con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Morris has a wrap sheet about a mile long, with scandals of all colors. If you follow the link I provided, you can spend hours reading about the scandals and dirty tricks this clown has been involved with.
> ...



Well _duh_....he's a Dumbocrat who worked for the Clinton's. Of course he's going to have "a wrap sheet a mile long with scandals of all colors". The Clinton's have a wrap sheet ten million miles long with scandals of colors that don't even exist yet. And that's who you want to stick in the Oval Office. Really illustrates what a piece of shit you are and how you lack all integrity. But hey - for you it's all about what you can steal from _other_ people.

Well, duh, you are a lying con troll.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


To prove your claim that I "lied" is a *lie* - here is indisputable proof that he worked for Bill Clinton (just like I said):

*Richard S.* "*Dick*" *Morris* (born November 28, 1946) is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.

*A friend and advisor to Bill Clinton* during his time as Governor of Arkansas, *Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992*. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulationthat combined traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues so as to achieve maximum political gain and popularity. He worked as a Republican strategist before *joining the Clinton administration*, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by advising the President to adopt more moderate policies.[7] The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994.[8] Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said, *"Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president*."[9] Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President.

Dick Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Still struggling to use a simple website I see...   No wonder nobody would hire you. I can see why you live off welfare.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


No the article, specifically the Haskins quote, did NOT contradict itself. YOU dishonestly took Haskins' objection to Obama acting "unilaterally" or as you like to call it "illegally," and used that to falsely claim Haskins agreed with your lie that Obama gutted welfare reform, which is why you knowing edited out Haskins' comments that followed that Obama did NOT gut welfare reform, proving you are not just a liar, but you are a PREMEDITATED liar.

Here is the full quote again:

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have *unilaterally changed* the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

*“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform*,” said Haskins,co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. *“Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.*


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...





P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


So, me con troll, here is what you said, copied and posted to here from your very own post earlier today:
"Well _duh_....he's a Dumbocrat who worked for the Clinton's."
So you are lying by saying I did not indicate he once worked for Clinton over 20 years ago.  I did indeed say he did.  And showed that in 1996 they fired him and cut ties.  But since he has worked for republicans and not dems over the past 20 years, that does not mean he is today a dem.  That is too stupid even for you to believe. Just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.   He works only for republican people and concerns.  He is primarily a republican, and a paid whore for whomever will pay him.
So, this is not going to end well for you, but:
1.  I stated and proved that over time Morris worked for anyone who paid him.
2.  And Morris will say whatever he needs to to get paid.
3.  He worked for democrats prior to 1996 when they fired him and cut ties to him.
4.  Morris has not worked for democrats now for over 20 years. 
5.  Morris has worked for republicans, for fox, for various republican interests for the past 20 years.
6.  During the past 20 years he has not worked for democrats at all.
7.  So, your statement that he is a democrat is a lie.  
8.  So no, me lying con troll, neither I or my sources said anything about morris not having once worked for democrats. 
9.  And having not worked for dems in 20 years and during that time only working for republicans proves you are lying.  
10.  It is well known, as I have proven easily, morris is far from a democrat.  Which proves you lied.  
11. You loose again because you are caught lying again.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

"P@triot, post: 15020610, member: 30955"]I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section
And edited out the rest that contradicted you.[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
So if that were true (and it's *not*) then your article contradicted itself and is a completely unreliable source. Why do you post unreliable sources? Can't find anything reliable to support your *lies*? *Barack Obama illegally altered the welfare reform laws* signed into law by Bill Clinton after being passed by Congress. Only Congress can make, alter, or abolish laws. They did no such thing to the welfare reform law and* yet Obama illegally usurped the Constitution* and removed the work requirement.
No the article, specifically the Haskins quote, did NOT contradict itself. YOU dishonestly took Haskins' objection to Obama acting "unilaterally" or as you like to call it "illegally," and used that to falsely claim Haskins agreed with your lie that Obama gutted welfare reform, which is why you knowing edited out Haskins' comments that followed that Obama did NOT gut welfare reform, proving you are not just a liar, but you are a PREMEDITATED liar.

Here is the full quote again:

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have *unilaterally changed* the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

*“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform*,” said Haskins,co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. *“Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment” of recipients.*

Patriot is another of those con trolls who are low lives who lie, and lie about their lies, and on and on.  He, like all con trolls, is not at all interested in truth.  He just wants to sell his con talking points and doing so by lying is perfectly ok with him.  Con trolls have no class or integrity.  They simply want to push their agenda, which happens to match up perfectly, word for word, with con talking points and the drivel pushed by bat shit crazy con web sites.
An honorable person would admit he was wrong, and apologize.  Patriot, having no honor, will simply lie again about his lie.  Because that is the best he can do.  He is, after all, just a con troll.  And he is trying to say that Haskins said something he did not.  Which is about as low as you can go.  But then, he has no shame.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> "P@triot, post: 15020610, member: 30955"]I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section
> And edited out the rest that contradicted you.So if that were true (and it's *not*) then your article contradicted itself and is a completely unreliable source. Why do you post unreliable sources? Can't find anything reliable to support your *lies*? *Barack Obama illegally altered the welfare reform laws* signed into law by Bill Clinton after being passed by Congress. Only Congress can make, alter, or abolish laws. They did no such thing to the welfare reform law and* yet Obama illegally usurped the Constitution* and removed the work requirement.
> No the article, specifically the Haskins quote, did NOT contradict itself. YOU dishonestly took Haskins' objection to Obama acting "unilaterally" or as you like to call it "illegally," and used that to falsely claim Haskins agreed with your lie that Obama gutted welfare reform, which is why you knowing edited out Haskins' comments that followed that Obama did NOT gut welfare reform, proving you are not just a liar, but you are a PREMEDITATED liar.
> 
> ...


Still struggling to use a simple website I see.... Seriously dude, is there no adult you can turn to for help?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Patriot is another of those con trolls who are low lives who lie, and lie about their lies, and on and on.  He, like all con trolls, is not at all interested in truth.  He just wants to sell his con talking points and doing so by lying is perfectly ok with him.  Con trolls have no class or integrity.  They simply want to push their agenda, which happens to match up perfectly, word for word, with con talking points and the drivel pushed by bat shit crazy con web sites.
> An honorable person would admit he was wrong, and apologize.  Patriot, having no honor, will simply lie again about his lie.  Because that is the best he can do.  He is, after all, just a con troll.  And he is trying to say that Haskins said something he did not.  Which is about as low as you can go.  But then, he has no shame.


This here is what is known as "projection". Where you attempt to blame someone else for all of your own faults. Libtards are pathological liars. Hitlery Clinton proves that every day on the national state, while Rshermr here proves that every day on USMB.

The funny part is watching how _angry_ he gets over the truth. He's so afraid that his government gravy train will dry up if he can't continue the liberal propaganda. But I will say - he probably has a right to be deathly afraid of having to take care of himself like an adult. He hasn't mastered the English language yet and after several _years_ (since May 30, 2012 to be exact) he _still_ hasn't figured out how to use this website. He can't reply to a post without making it look like what someone else said was his words or visa-versa.

If you're illiterate and can't figure out a simple website after more than 4 years, your chances of surviving without government providing for you are not good. So I do understand his predicament. Still, it would be nice to see him illustrate an ounce of integrity and just be honest about everything. Admit that you need government handouts to survive rather than telling outrageous lies. But....if he had any integrity at all, he wouldn't be a liberal in the first place. He's be a conservative.[/USER]


----------



## P@triot (Aug 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> No the article, specifically the Haskins quote, did NOT contradict itself. YOU dishonestly took Haskins' objection to Obama acting "unilaterally" or as you like to call it "illegally," and used that to falsely claim Haskins agreed with your lie that Obama gutted welfare reform, which is why you knowing edited out Haskins' comments that followed that Obama did NOT gut welfare reform, proving you are not just a liar, but you are a PREMEDITATED liar.
> 
> Here is the full quote again:
> 
> ...


No matter how many times you tell a lie, it doesn't become the truth. Here is the quote again which 100% supports exactly what I said.

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, *told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement* rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform” is “very misleading.”

That's exactly what we said Obama did. He gutted the work requirement. He once again made it just a handout that required nothing on behalf of the recipient. You lose junior. You're desperately attempting to get off on semantics here and it's not going to happen. Your own post supported exactly what I said. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > "P@triot, post: 15020610, member: 30955"]I didn't "edit" _anything_. I simply kept the relevant section
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot is another of those con trolls who are low lives who lie, and lie about their lies, and on and on.  He, like all con trolls, is not at all interested in truth.  He just wants to sell his con talking points and doing so by lying is perfectly ok with him.  Con trolls have no class or integrity.  They simply want to push their agenda, which happens to match up perfectly, word for word, with con talking points and the drivel pushed by bat shit crazy con web sites.
> > An honorable person would admit he was wrong, and apologize.  Patriot, having no honor, will simply lie again about his lie.  Because that is the best he can do.  He is, after all, just a con troll.  And he is trying to say that Haskins said something he did not.  Which is about as low as you can go.  But then, he has no shame.


This here is what is known as "projection". Where you attempt to blame someone else for all of your own faults. Libtards are pathological liars. Hitlery Clinton proves that every day on the national state, while Rshermr here proves that every day on USMB.
The reason you can not prove I ever lie is that I never ever lie.  You just got caught, first by edthecynic, then by me.  So I said you would lie (caught you, me boy) and then you would lie about the lie.  Here you are, lying about the lie.  I know you feel you can lie your way out, but truth is, everyone knows you are a lying con.  So it will not end well for you.
Hillary clinton is a politician.  Running against trump.  Per Politigact, here statements are untrue 25% of the time.  But trump, per politifact, has statements that are untrue 69% of the time.  So, me boy, why are you not totally pissed at Trump.  We all know, of course.  It is because you are a con troll. 

The funny part is watching how _angry_ he gets over the truth.  * Not sure who "he" is in your tiny mind.*  He's so afraid that his government gravy train will dry up if he can't continue the liberal propaganda. But I will say - he probably has a right to be deathly afraid of having to take care of himself like an adult. He hasn't mastered the English language yet and after several _years_ (since May 30, 2012 to be exact) he _still_ hasn't figured out how to use this website. He can't reply to a post without making it look like what someone else said was his words or visa-versa.  Ah, you are talking about me.  Lying again.  As usual.  Perhaps if you took a remedial course in composition you would learn how to indicate whom you are talking about.  Really, if it was not for you repeating lies about me again, I would have never known.
If you're illiterate and can't figure out a simple website after more than 4 years, your chances of surviving without government providing for you are not good. Says the poor janitor, who on his wage is paying close to the minimum into social security. And will as a result get little out.   No schooling for the janitor, could not possibly make it into college cause he is too slow in the head.  And pretends to be a real self made man (janitor).  And talking to a person with two college degrees and a life of accomplishment, and who never took such a low paying and  poorly thought of job as you have accepted as your place in life.  Funny.  So, do you think anyone cares about your opinion, me poor ignorant con troll?  They would, however, if you used impartial and expert sources to back up your statements.    So I do understand his predicament. Still, it would be nice to see him illustrate an ounce of integrity and just be honest about everything. I do.  Over and over.  You simply do not recognize it.  Because as a con troll, you are a simple lying tool that has no integrity.  Admit that you need government handouts to survive rather than telling outrageous lies.  I am fine without them, me boy.  But you will be looking for the next months gov check like a starving person looking for a hot dog.   But....if he had any integrity at all, he wouldn't be a liberal in the first place. He's be a conservative. Good english, dipshit. "He's be a conservative"  would get you an F in your remedial composition class.  Hardly.  No one wants to be anything like you, me boy.  
Speaking of integrity, do you want to apologize to me for the statement that Dick "'the toe" Morris is a democrat now that you have been proven wrong.  Or how about using dick morris as a reference proved you do not value impartial sources, and that you used an agenda driven "pay me and I will say and do anything" clown.  Or do you just plan to go on to your next lie?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 14, 2016)

]Patriot is another of those con trolls who are low lives who lie, and lie about their lies, and on and on.  He, like all con trolls, is not at all interested in truth.  He just wants to sell his con talking points and doing so by lying is perfectly ok with him.  Con trolls have no class or integrity.  They simply want to push their agenda, which happens to match up perfectly, word for word, with con talking points and the drivel pushed by bat shit crazy con web sites.
An honorable person would admit he was wrong, and apologize.  Patriot, having no honor, will simply lie again about his lie.  Because that is the best he can do.  He is, after all, just a con troll.  And he is trying to say that Haskins said something he did not.  Which is about as low as you can go.  But then, he has no shame.[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]
This here is what is known as "projection".  Jesus, me boy.  Never, ever, use the words "this here" in your remedial composition class.  Ditch the "here", since it makes it apparent that you do not understand the english language, and proves you to be classless.  And, definitely will get you an F when your work is graded.  Where you attempt to blame someone else for all of your own faults. Libtards are pathological liars. Hitlery Clinton proves that every day on the national state, while Rshermr here proves that every day on USMB.
The reason you can not prove I ever lie is that I never ever lie.  You just got caught, first by edthecynic, then by me.  So I said you would lie (caught you, me boy) and then you would lie about the lie.  Here you are, lying about the lie.  I know you feel you can lie your way out, but truth is, everyone knows you are a lying con.  So it will not end well for you.
Hillary clinton is a politician.  Running against trump.  Per Politigact, here statements are untrue 25% of the time.  But trump, per politifact, has statements that are untrue 69% of the time.  So, me boy, why are you not totally pissed at Trump.  We all know, of course.  It is because you are a con troll. 

The funny part is watching how _angry_ he gets over the truth.  * Not sure who "he" is in your tiny mind.*  He's so afraid that his government gravy train will dry up if he can't continue the liberal propaganda. But I will say - he probably has a right to be deathly afraid of having to take care of himself like an adult. He hasn't mastered the English language yet and after several _years_ (since May 30, 2012 to be exact) he _still_ hasn't figured out how to use this website. He can't reply to a post without making it look like what someone else said was his words or visa-versa.  Ah, you are talking about me.  Lying again.  As usual.  Perhaps if you took a remedial course in composition you would learn how to indicate whom you are talking about.  Really, if it was not for you repeating lies about me again, I would have never known.
If you're illiterate and can't figure out a simple website after more than 4 years, your chances of surviving without government providing for you are not good. Says the poor janitor, who on his wage is paying close to the minimum into social security. And will as a result get little out.   No schooling for the janitor, could not possibly make it into college cause he is too slow in the head.  And pretends to be a real self made man (janitor).  And talking to a person with two college degrees and a life of accomplishment, and who never took such a low paying and  poorly thought of job as you have accepted as your place in life.  Funny.  So, do you think anyone cares about your opinion, me poor ignorant con troll?  They would, however, if you used impartial and expert sources to back up your statements.    So I do understand his predicament. Still, it would be nice to see him illustrate an ounce of integrity and just be honest about everything. I do.  Over and over.  You simply do not recognize it.  Because as a con troll, you are a simple lying tool that has no integrity.  Admit that you need government handouts to survive rather than telling outrageous lies.  I am fine without them, me boy.  But you will be looking for the next months gov check like a starving person looking for a hot dog.   But....if he had any integrity at all, he wouldn't be a liberal in the first place. He's be a conservative. Good english, dipshit. "He's be a conservative"  would get you an F in your remedial composition class.  Hardly.  No one wants to be anything like you, me boy.  
Speaking of integrity, do you want to apologize to me for the statement that Dick "'the toe" Morris is a democrat now that you have been proven wrong.  Or how about using dick morris as a reference proved you do not value impartial sources, and that you used an agenda driven "pay me and I will say and do anything" clown.  Or do you just plan to go on to your next lie?[/QUOTE]


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. 

He does make some clever comments regarding the laws of supply and demand, but the sole notion that capitalism is intrinsincly stable is laughable.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...



The problem with banks is that they have this tendency to use other's people's money to run their business. 
There is no way around this in the current system: when they extend a loan it becomes a deposit in their own bank or in another bank. 
Banks must be regulated. Period.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


It _is_ "intrincsincly stable". You know why? Two very simple (and undeniable reasons):

In the true free market, awful companies go out of business. Great companies thrive.

Unlike socialism, the true free market is redundancy. There is no single point of failure. There is no "too big to fail". A big bank goes out of business and nobody rescues it. All of their business shifts to other banks while opening up opportunity for new banks.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Uh....._everybody_ uses "other people's money to run their business". If you make a sale (whether it is a burger, a laptop, or a house), that _was_ someone else's money. But you earned it and now it is yours. The same way with the banks. If you choose to bank with a company - they _earned_ your business. Just like Apple did when you bought their iPhone. There is no difference.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



No, with banks its the other way around. When you deposit your money in the bank the bank adquires a liability : they owe you your money. When they extend a loan, they have an asset. But in modern banking that asset will likely be converted into the liability in another bank. By extending loans banks multiply the monetary base, such base contracts when loans are repaid, this leads to expansion and contraction cycles in the economy.... and Milton was absolutely clueless about this ( as most economists).

Furthermore, when you buy a burger, you get something in exchange of equivalent value when you perform the transaction. This is not the case with banks.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



It is unstable for many reasons:
   - 1)changes in the level of private debt
  - 2)asset bubbles
  - 3)creative destruction
  - 4)changes in household income to gdp ratio ( this is linked to 1)


----------



## Markle (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



That is something far beyond a Progressives ability to comprehend.  They firmly believe that if an airline goes bankrupt, suddenly there is going be a huge shortage of seats flying to and from the airports previously served by the defunct airline.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Your points are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a person will take one loan at a bank to pay off another loan at another bank. That new bank has now _earned_ your business and thus has a right to that money which they earned. Likewise, if banks want to roll up their loans and sell them off to another institution, that other institution earned that banks business.

As far as the "expansion and contraction" cycles - the banks have _nothing_ to do with that. That is all based on government (such as tax rates hammering away at profits) and people (such as someone not planning properly for their retirement and becoming a burden of the state).


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Everything you just named has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with government regulation. In the free market, changes in the level of debt (increasing or reducing) only affects the institution and/or individual changing their level of debt. It in no way affects other businesses or other people. That only occurs with socialism - when the few are forced to bail out the many who took wild risks because they knew there was no actual risk - they knew they would be bailed out.

Likewise, in the free market, asset bubbles only affects the institution and/or individual with the asset in question. It in no way affects other businesses or other people. That only occurs with socialism - when the few are forced to bail out the many who took wild risks because they knew there was no actual risk - they knew they would be bailed out.

"Creative destruction" is just another in a long line of left-wing fallacies. Just because Apple manufactures a new iPhone doesn't mean you have to go buy one. And if you choose to, and that creates debt for you that you couldn't afford, only you pay the price in the true free market. Under liberalism - all of society pays the price for your bad decisions. And that's why it always ends in failure while true free markets continually generates prosperity. 

And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost _exclusively_ the result of government intervention. This is the equivalent of proclaiming that the AIDS virus is responsible for cancer deaths.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

Markle said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Exactly! Because liberals believe everything occurs in a vacuum. They can't process that everything which occurs has a ripple effect. I once spoke with a devout liberal who was one of the rare liberals that was actually reasonable and willing to listen. We were discussing GM. I told him the truth - that my entire life I had never owned anything but a GM (I never planned it that way, it just worked out that way). I asked him if we had let GM go out of business if he thought I would start walking to work. Of course he said "no - you'd purchase a vehicle from another manufacturer because you'd have no other choice since GM was gone". I explained to him that ALL of GM's customers would be forced to make that same decision - which would lead to increased sales/demand from those other manufacturers. That would require all of them to hire more people to meet the demand. All of those people out of work from GM would then have better jobs with better run companies. They would be happier and the economy would be stronger.

To his credit, he immediately said "wow....I never though of it that way". Liberals don't think for themselves. Whatever propaganda they are spoon fed by the people with an agenda (namely, to get in power and stay in power) they simply by into. The funny thing is, since their leaders push "natural selection" (i.e. Darwin Theory), the don't even realize they are contradicting themselves. The free market is just "natural selection". The strongest companies thrive and populate stronger jobs, products, and other businesses. The weaker companies die off and are unable to "reproduce".


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Creative destruction has nothing to do with the example you present:

"Creative destruction, a term coined by Joseph Schumpeter in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" in 1942, describes the "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." 

"In breaking down the pre-capitalist framework of society, capitalism thus broke not only barriers that impeded its progress but also flying buttresses that prevented its collapse. That process, impressive in its relentless necessity, was not merely a matter of removing institutional deadwood, but of removing partners of the capitalist stratum, symbiosis with whom was an essential element of the capitalist schema. [... T]he capitalist process in much the same way in which it destroyed the institutional framework of feudal society also undermines its own"

Creative Destruction Definition | Investopedia
Creative destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative destruction is the process through which old jobs and industries are destroyed and new ones are created. 
The new posts are eventually filled, but this requires an adjustment time. This is what makes the system unstable. 
If the changes are too fast the labour force will not be able to accomodate to the changes.


*And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention*
  Any links whatsoever to support your claim?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 17, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I explained to him that ALL of GM's customers would be forced to make that same decision - which would lead to increased sales/demand from those other manufacturers. That would require all of them to hire more people to meet the demand. All of those people out of work from GM would then have better jobs with better run companies. They would be happier and the economy would be stronger.



This is not what I meant at all. 
   A simple example: assume within 7 years all cars have an automatic pilot. Suddenly all drivers are laid off. Sure enough , there will be some new jobs in the IT industry and the auto industry to develop new cars, but :
 A) Retooling from truck driver to engineer is a rather tough task specially if you are jobless. This changes usually take a new generation to fill the gaps, which really sucks for those left behind
 B) The number of new posts might not be enough to compensate for the jobs destroyed. True enough other jobs might be made available, the problem is how much time it will take to fill the gaps. 

Take a look at the charts below. Industrial production is at an all time high, but the number of industrial jobs is NOT going up. Those jobs are not comming back. And the people who lost those jobs will have to retool their abilities to get a new job. 

Finally don't tell me this can't happen. Look at the charts. Look at the actual data.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 17, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> *And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention*
> Any links whatsoever to support your claim?


That's kind of like saying "add links to support your claim that the sun exists". If you need links to explain that government is the single biggest impact on GDP (unfortunately), then you probably shouldn't be having a discussion on economics.

*Taxes* - taxes dictates pricing, product, location, labor, etc. Taxes are controlled by *government* (from federal, to state, to local).

*Labor laws* - labor laws dictates labor. Labor dictates your ability to do _everything_ and anything. It affects your ability to produce, to meet customer demand, etc. Labor laws are controlled by *government*.

*Regulations* - regulations not only dictate what you can and can't do - but they can also be costly which impacts the ability to conduct business, impacts pricing, impacts the ability to hire additional labor (or retain existing labor when regulations are altered or new regulations are implemented), etc. Regulations are controlled by *government*.

*International Trade Agreements* - as obvious as the other one's listed - this dictates what industry can and can't do overseas. It has major impact on costs, demand, opportunities, etc. Trade Agreements are controlled by *government*.

Do you see a pattern here? Government and Control. Please don't make me explain the obvious to you again. It's both painful and boring.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > *And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention*
> ...



So , the fact that there is an oversupply of non qualified labour has no effect on such share?
The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
The level of private debt doesn't change that at all ?

Certainly the government has an important role to play, but it is not by far the only agent that plays a role in the labour to gdp ratio.

Take a look at this article and judge by yourself ( unless you want to disregard Business Insider as left wing propaganda ).

Here's why labor's share of GDP has been declining for 40 years

"These trends kicked into high gear when globalization (i.e. offshore competition and global supply chains) gutted U.S. industries in the 1970s (competition from Japan and South Korea) and again in the 1990s-2000s as competition from China and other emerging economies pressured U.S. corporate costs and profits.

If these factors continue to play out–and I see no reason they won’t–we can expect labor’s share of GDP to continue its slide as human labor is automated in a highly globalized economy.

This long-term erosion of earned income and household finances does not enable “growth” that is based on rising spending and borrowing. If these are no longer possible, the status quo has no Plan B."


----------



## P@triot (Aug 18, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?


And _why_ have corporations moved manufacturing overseas? Because they enjoy the cost and headaches of moving their operations? Because they love the instability of third-world countries? No. Because *government* (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable. Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the _world_), their labor laws, and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America. So they took their business somewhere else.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that samWhe effect?
> ...



No. Because *government* (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable.
*Why is it, then, that Real GDP has grown every year since the Great Republican Recession year of 2009?      *US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

Their taxes (highest corporate taxes in the _world_)
*Are published tax rates important, or is it tax rates PAID, the EFFECTIVE, tax rate that counts?
(US Effective tax rates, or tax rate paid, are far from the highest in any world.)



*
their labor laws
*Do you have a link that proves that US labor laws are hurting US businesses?
*
and their regulations have made it way to costly to do business in America.
*Any proof the US is hard to do business in?
The World Bank ranks the US 7th out of 189 countries for ease of doing business in.*
Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations) | Data

So they took their business somewhere else.
*Why did you not mention the number one reason that companies move?  That being labor cost.

Your post is easily disproved, Most with no expertise, like yourself,  provide links to such sources that are impartial and back their statements.  Like those I provided above and below.  You, on the other hand, provide none.  Here, for instance, is a link that totally disproves your comments about US tax rates for companies being the highest in the world.  Or high at all, for that matter.


P@triot said:





CultureCitizen said:



And "changes in household income to GDP ratio" are almost exclusively the result of government intervention
  Any links whatsoever to support your claim?
		
Click to expand...

That's kind of like saying "add links to support your claim that the sun exists". If you need links to explain that government is the single biggest impact on GDP (unfortunately), then you probably shouldn't be having a discussion on economics.

Taxes - taxes dictates pricing, product, location, labor, etc. Taxes are controlled by government (from federal, to state, to local).

Labor laws - labor laws dictates labor. Labor dictates your ability to do everything and anything. It affects your ability to produce, to meet customer demand, etc. Labor laws are controlled by government.

Regulations - regulations not only dictate what you can and can't do - but they can also be costly which impacts the ability to conduct business, impacts pricing, impacts the ability to hire additional labor (or retain existing labor when regulations are altered or new regulations are implemented), etc. Regulations are controlled by government.

International Trade Agreements - as obvious as the other one's listed - this dictates what industry can and can't do overseas. It has major impact on costs, demand, opportunities, etc. Trade Agreements are controlled by government.

Do you see a pattern here? Government and Control. Please don't make me explain the obvious to you again. It's both painful and boring.
		
Click to expand...


.
Consider:*

*Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.*
*General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.*
*288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.*
*Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.*
*U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.*
*U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.*
*Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

What is cool for you Patriot, is that you are not bound by truth or evidence or integrity.  You simply always, always post con talking points, which are proven lies.*


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that private companies decided to offshore labour to cheaper countries doesn't have that same effect?
> ...



You make it sound as if the market is incapable of making those same changes. Mexico and the US have very similar tax rates and in fact their labor regulations are harder than those US ( you can't dismiss an employee without paying 3 months of compensation, you have to pay them 10% of earnings) and yet many factories have moved there? Why ? Labour is cheaper. 

Ah, then you might say it was the government who enacted NAFTA. True, but that was de-regulation to have open trade, by doing that the government was actually enabling the market forces to have a more significant role than the government.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 18, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's *not* the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 18, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? 
That's nonesense. 

The daily minimum wage in the US is about $60. In Mexico it's about $5.50 , but in PPP it is probably about $10. 
Even considering savings in  shipping and insurance the wages would have to go down to about $30 a day to be competitive. 

Honestly , other than illegals , do you know anyone willing to work 8 hours for $30 a day? 

And even in that case , that would probably do little to rise the share of labour vs GDP. Even if 50 million of such jobs were created at that miserable level that would only rise by 3%  the share of labour vs gdp.


----------



## Markle (Aug 18, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



When did we get the authority to change the minimum wage in an another, sovereign country?  Who knew?

We should drop the minimum wage on a Federal Level.  If individual states or municipalities want one, that's their business.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 18, 2016)

Markle said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Alas, I did not suggest such thing.... that's P@triot suggestion so that free markets could work properly.
Indeed such arrangements can be made as part of trade agreements.

My point is creative destruction, industrial jobs are being destroyed by technological advances, it is necesary to change the skills and toolkits of new generations: to insist in getting those jobs back is a folly... as is the notion that markets will solve the situation by liberating the minimum wage.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 18, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.


That _is_ nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I *not* say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.

For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.

This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the _exact_ same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.

When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly _twice_ that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.
> ...



Ok Patriot you said : 

*Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).*
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions. 
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ). 
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology _or_ we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less?


All of them that are not liberals looking for handouts and a free ride.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Time to start macro 101.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No. Because *government* (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable.
> ...


Why is it then that Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. _history_ to not see even one single year of 3% GDP growth or more. _Boom_! Game over princess.

The reason we've seen _any_ growth at all is because the American people turned to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms to save them. They turned the House and the Senate over to conservatives. But most of all - they turned their states over to conservatives and the states have done a marvelous job of creating jobs under the circumstances. Barack Obama has done everything within his power to collapse the U.S. economy (and came awfully close).


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Ah....now you run from the topic at hand and post something that was never discussed or argued about. Beautiful.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2016)

[P@triot, post: 15066011, member: 30955"]





Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > No. Because *government* (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable.
> ...


Why is it, then, that Real GDP has grown every year since the Great Republican Recession year of 2009?
US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]
Why is it then that Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. _history_ to not see even one single year of 3% GDP growth or more. _Boom_! Game over princess.
Wow, what a simple question.  Only a person with no knowledge, and probably a janitor, would not understand.  
Lets explain.  Try to keep up, me boy:
1.  In 2008 we had the great republican recession of 2008.
2.  In the years of 2008 and 2009, we had NEGATIVE growh, under republican policies.
3.  We came close to the biggest depression in our history.
4.  Obama saved us with a stimulus that every single republican voted against.
5.  After the stimulus, which brought us back to positive growth, absolutely ZERO republicans brought forward a actual jobs bill.
6.  Republicans admitted they wanted just to cause Obama to loose his second election, and did not care what they voted against.
7.  Republicans voted against every single jobs bill brought forward by democrats.

So, there you go.  And as a con troll janitor, you believe the con talking points, which include your present statement.  Truth is, as RATIONAL people know, it is amazing that the economy has done well. 
So, there you go.  Game over, me janitorial princess.

The reason we've seen _any_ growth at all is because the American people turned to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms to save them. They turned the House and the Senate over to conservatives. But most of all - they turned their states   Conservatives who did not bring forward a single jobs bill.  And did what they could to ruin the economy.  over to conservatives and the states have done a marvelous job of creating jobs under the circumstances. Barack Obama has done everything within his power to collapse the U.S. economy (and came awfully close)
That is, of course, a con lie.  Normal from the con janitor.  A janitor should provide a link to an impartial source to back up his ignorance.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 19, 2016)

Ok Patriot you said :

*Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).*
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?[/QUOTE]
Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology _or_ we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.

Time to start macro 101  [./QUOTE]   [ /QUOTE]





Ah....now you run from the topic at hand and post something that was never discussed or argued about. Beautiful. 

If you translate Patriot's post, he does not understand, and does not want to understand, very, very simple economic macroeconomics.  So he needs to attack it.  Because, as a janitor, he does not have any understanding of economics and simply makes a fool of himself when trying to discuss it.  And poor Patriot can not understand that   
So, Patriot does not know that the graphic that Culturcitisen provided gave anyone with half a brain the answer to all of the issues revolving around this subject.  Poor igorant con troll.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point. But to further clarify:
If the corporate and banking sectors start growing faster than households, eventually you will get a recession. You can keep growing by increasing credit, but eventually credit will become a bubble which will burst. This is what happened in 2008. 
For many years the corporate and banking sectors have grown at a faster rate than household incomes, the growth was largely supported by increasing household debt. But eventually the debt became too large to pay. The bubble bursted and the economy contracted. 

Exception to the above scenario:  If you have exports growing faster than gdp you can keep growing until your exports fall ( like what happened in China ) , the only ways to keep the economy from collapsing in that case is through debt, either private or public.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 19, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:
> 
> Economics 101
> "Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "
> ...


Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 19, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:
> ...



Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households. 

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
  Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it.  And nut case economists followed suit.  And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject.  Problem is, it did not work.  At all.  And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics.  Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands.  Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away.  Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1.  Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2.  The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3.  A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.  The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4.  Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED. 
5.  Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6.  Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers.  Only conservatives today try to push the theory.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:
> ...


Come "full circle"? You haven't even started.  Sorry, me boy.  You totally missed it.  You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal.  He has not missed that fact.  What you missed is that business to business demand goes away if consumer demand decreases to a point that the businesses goods are no longer purchased in sufficient quantity. You see, B2B demand is totally dependent on consumer demand.  And is WAY smaller always.  That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders.  You just proved you know nothing about college classes in economics.  Econ 100 is most often a college class in economics for non economics majors.   The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.  So, you post a nonsensical idea that demand by businesses push the economy, and you can not prove it with a link, and then suggest the problem is we who understand the issue.  Perhaps you have a link?  Nah, of course not.  You just think people should believe you based on your self professed understanding of economics.  All the while proving you have no such understanding.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it.  And nut case economists followed suit.  And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject.  Problem is, it did not work. At all.



Of course it did. It was the greatest economic success story _ever_. Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. _history_ from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.



Rshermr said:


> 1.  Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.



The Laffer Curve is an indisputable reality.



Rshermr said:


> 2.  The idea of trickle down did not occur.


It absolutely occurred. But you wouldn't know because your inbred, outback ass was sitting with the aborigines unaware of what was actually occurring in the U.S. As I already stated above, Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history and created one of the greatest economies ever. There has never been a bigger turn around. The indisputable reality is that poor people do not create jobs. It is the wealthy that create jobs. And they can't hire people if they don't have money in their pockets. There are only two economic choices - trickle down economics (implemented by conservatives - who actually understand economics - which creates wealth and prosperity for all) or flood up poverty (implemented by ignorant liberals who prefer ideology over reality - which creates poverty for everyone as seen by Cuba, Cambodia, and even Detroit).


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


I notice you _still_ have not figured out how to use this website. Anyone too ignorant to use a website should not even _attempt_ to discuss economics.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal.
> ...


 
Bwahahahahaha! The fact that your dumb-ass believes my quote about businesses "shopping for the best deal" is in regards to "business to business" is not only an illustration of your astounding ignorance but also a real indictment on your reading comprehension.

Sweetie...we have been talking about government regulations on business for like 10 pages now. When I said business were shopping for the best deal - it was *not* in the context of goods and services from _other_ businesses. It was in the context of governments. Which ever nations would provide them with the best deal of the lowest taxes, the least costly regulations, the least costly labor demands, all of which have the biggest impact on costs to the business which in turn have the biggest impact on profits.

Rshermr - I'm sorry. I _really_ am. But you simply don't have the intellect to be in these discussion. You want so badly to be American and be bright enough to be involved but you need to accept who and what you are. Come to grips with it. _Nobody_ was even hinting at "B2B" and yet that's what you got out of the discussion because you can't follow along. Now _please_ - set down the mouse, pick up your 12 foot spear and your didgeridoo, and leave discussions about the U.S. to Americans.

So once again here for the infinitely ignorant - businesses shop for the best deal (from nations/governments). The idiot ideology of liberalism has driven millions of U.S. jobs overseas because liberal taxes, liberal labor laws, and liberal regulations have made it nearly impossible to conduct business in America. When and if liberals wake up to this indisputable reality and cultivate a competitive business environment in the U.S. - jobs will come rushing back. We need to have the _lowest_ corporate tax rate in the world, the least amount of regulations, and the least costly labor laws. When that happens, we will have a flourishing economy. Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. to not experience at least one year of 3% GDP growth or more. After 8 years, that is a clear indication that the liberal ideology is a failed ideology - especially when it comes to economics.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Renowned economist Friedrich Hayak taught that those that try to control an economy are guilty of not only fatal conceit, but also of fatal errors - which inevitably _doom_ planned economies. History has also taught as much.

That really epitomizes liberals. Conceit. Arrogance. And ignorance. They believe they always know best instead of just leaving people *free* to do what they want to do.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. _history_ from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.


Pure BULLSHIT!
Reagan CREATED the second worst economy in US history at the time, only surpassed by Bush crashing the housing market with his ADDI, and also crashing the world economy.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. _history_ from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.
> ...


Lying about reality doesn't change reality. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind only the Great Depression) and Ronald Reagan created out of that one of the most successful economies in U.S. history.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


The Great Reagan Recession BEGAN the second half of St Ronnie's first year and extended until the end of 1982.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

"Rshermr, post: 15077219, member: 37424"]2.  The idea of trickle down did not occur.
It absolutely occurred.    [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
Of course it didn't   If you believe it did, you need to prove it.  Here, on the other hand, is why id did not:
1.  After decreasing taxes greatly in 1981, the unemployment rate rocketed upward for a full year, until it was at 10.8%.  That, me boy, is what the second highest unemployment rate in history was.  December of 1982 after the great reagan tax cut of March 1981.  You have the wrong year, the wrong president.
2.  Regan, when the unemployment rate was soaring, late 1981, began Keynesian policies, increasing taxes 11 times and spending like a drunken sailor.  He:
       A  Tripled the national debt, the only president to ever do so.
       B.  Spent more than all previous presidents combined.
       C.  Increased the size of the federal government greatly.
3.  The economy responded, and by 1986 had recovered and was great thanks to Keynesian methods.

So, assuming that Reagan recognized the recession his policies had caused by 1981, you may want to explain why he did not decrease taxes again, or try to balance the budget and cease spending.  

It was the greatest economic success story _ever_.   Hardly.  Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. _history_ from Jimmy Carter and when he left office,  No, he did not.  The economy was marginally bad with an unemployment rate of 7.3%   The second WORST economy ever, me boy, was his, in 1982 when the ue rate reached 10.8%.  Only surpassed once in the past century, which was during the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. But not his tax cut policy.  The boom only started after the great Keynesian policies of  continuous spending stimulus  It was astounding.   The great Republican Recession of 1982 was indeed astounding.  It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.  Sorry, me boy.  The Reagan economy ended with the first George Bush economy.  The bush recession was not terrible, like Reagan's, but it ended any continuing boom.  The result of Bill Clintons tax increase and stimulus spending did, however, result in the best economy of any president in history.  Again, you missed it.  Wrong year, wrong president.
But you wouldn't know because your inbred, outback ass was sitting with the aborigines unaware of what was actually occurring in the U.S,  Look, me boy..  You are the one with no education and a job as a janitor.  Please try to provide proof.  To economists, the Laffer curve is a joke.  It is referred to by most as the Laugher curve.   As I already stated above, Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history and created one of the greatest economies ever.   As I proved, me boy, he created the second worst economy in US history.  You need to stop lying.  There has never been a bigger turn around. The indisputable reality is that poor people do not create jobs.  As reagan learned, the wealthy do not hire when demand is low.  So, tax decreases caused the worst increase in unemployment except for the Great Republican depression of 1929,  The ue rate went to 10.8%.   It is the wealthy that create jobs.   No, they do not.  You believe that increasing demand will be done if you give the countries wealth to the wealthy through tax decreases.  Reagan tried it.  He got, instead, the second deepest  recession since the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  But stimulus spending created aggregate demand from the poor and the middle class.  And they can't hire people if they don't have money in their pockets. If they have no money in their pockets, they are already out of business, and not paying taxes already, me boy. You just proved you are totally ignorant.  And, for those that do have a running business, tax cuts puts money in their accounts that they typically save, or use for personal investments.  They do not ever, however, increase production, because if buyers have insufficient economic demand, they will not buy because there is more stock in suppliers warehouses.  As Reagan learned.  There are only two economic choices - trickle down economics (implemented by conservatives - who actually understand economics - which creates wealth and prosperity for all) or flood up poverty (implemented by ignorant liberals who prefer ideology over reality - which creates poverty for everyone as seen by Cuba, Cambodia, and even Detroit).
Wrong again, me poor janitor.  You need links to sources, because your claims are easy to show to be untrue.  What rational people believe is that supply side economics and trickle down economics has failed, year after year after year.  There are other economic theories, many of them.  And your comments just proved without question that you have no clue of what they are, or how they work.  
If you check below, you will find that your totally ignorant claim that Reagan inherited the second worst economy on record was WRONG.  If you examine the months during his predecessors years in office, you will find he had decent but not great years.  If you check Reagans, you will find his years of 1982 and 1983 stunk.  
Here are the years, you can check out the individual months for yourself.  Though I am sure you will not.

*Date* *Rate*
Jun 1, 2016 4.90% 
Jan 1, 2016 4.90% 
Jan 1, 2015 5.70% 
Jan 1, 2014 6.60% 
Jan 1, 2013 8.00% 
Jan 1, 2012 8.30% 
Jan 1, 2011 9.10% 
Jan 1, 2010 9.80% 
Jan 1, 2009 7.80%     Obama
Jan 1, 2008 5.00% 
Jan 1, 2007 4.60% 
Jan 1, 2006 4.70% 
Jan 1, 2005 5.30% 
Jan 1, 2004 5.70% 
Jan 1, 2003 5.80% 
Jan 1, 2002 5.70% 
Jan 1, 2001 4.20%    Bush 2
Jan 1, 2000 4.00% 
Jan 1, 1999 4.30% 
Jan 1, 1998 4.60% 
Jan 1, 1997 5.30% 
Jan 1, 1996 5.60% 
Jan 1, 1995 5.60% 
Jan 1, 1994 6.60% 
Jan 1, 1993 7.30%  Clinton  
Jan 1, 1992 7.30% 
Jan 1, 1991 6.40% 
Jan 1, 1990 5.40% 
Jan 1, 1989 5.40%    Bush
Jan 1, 1988 5.70% 
Jan 1, 1987 6.60% 
Jan 1, 1986 6.70% 
Jan 1, 1985 7.30% 
Jan 1, 1984 8.00% 
*Jan 1, 1983 10.40% *
Jan 1, 1982 8.60% 
Jan 1, 1981 7.50%    Reagan
Jan 1, 1980 6.30% 
Jan 1, 1979 5.90% 
Jan 1, 1978 6.40% 
Jan 1, 1977 7.50%    Carter
Jan 1, 1976 7.90% 
Jan 1, 1975 8.10% 
Jan 1, 1974 5.10%    Ford
Jan 1, 1973 4.90% 
Jan 1, 1972 5.80% 
Jan 1, 1971 5.90% 
Jan 1, 1970 3.90%   Nixon
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/tble


Relative to overall worst employment years, corresponding to largest recession:

The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%
The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%.
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948

If you check the years out, you will find that the year 1982 had some supply side president named Ronald Reagan.  In 1982 he was going from Supply Side economic policies that failed him, to economic stimulus under the Keynesian Theory that worked really really well for him.  

Damn.  You have no proof for your post.  I just gave you two, and have many more if you need them.  Best guess is you will be back with more personal attacks.
So there you have it.  The three highest unemployment rates were:
1.  1933 25%  The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
2.  1982  10.8%  The Great Reagan Recession of 1982
3.  2009   10%    The Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Three republican depressions of economics, caused by republicans, and fixed by Keynesian methods.  Basically,  stimulus spending.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


So Patriot, the self appointed econ expert, states:
Lying about reality doesn't change reality.  That is true, me boy.  And in my next post, I provided links to prove you are lying.  But that I, and Edthecynic are telling the truth.    Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind only the Great Depression)  Again you are lying.  I provided links to prove you are lying.  But that I, and Edthecynic are telling the truth.  and Ronald Reagan created out of that one of the most successful economies in U.S. history  One of the best.  And after the recession he created, he used plain and simple Keynesian methods to do so.  As that post also explains.  He raised taxes.  Here:
"Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “*raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,*” including four times in just two years. *As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.*” 
So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents *COMBINED*.  He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.
> 
> View attachment 86194


Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion.  Just like you, except he is smart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


*
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.* 

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Bwahahahahaha! The fact that your dumb-ass believes my quote about businesses "shopping for the best deal" is in regards to "business to business" is not only an illustration of your astounding ignorance but also a real indictment on your reading comprehension.
Not at all, me poor ignorant con troll.  I know that as any consumer, businesses shop for the best deal.  Difference between businesses and laborers is that businesses have monopoly power.  Laborers and consumers do not.

Sweetie...we have been talking about government regulations on business for like 10 pages now. When I said business were shopping for the best deal - it was *not* in the context of goods and services from _other_ businesses. It was in the context of governments. Which ever nations would provide them with the best deal of the lowest taxes, the least costly regulations, the least costly labor demands, all of which have the biggest impact on costs to the business which in turn have the biggest impact on profits.  Sure you were,

Rshermr - I'm sorry. I _really_ am. But you simply don't have the intellect to be in these discussion. You want so badly to be American and be bright enough to be involved but you need to accept who and what you are. Come to grips with it. _Nobody_ was even hinting at "B2B" and yet that's what you got out of the discussion because you can't follow along. Now _please_ - set down the mouse, pick up your 12 foot spear and your didgeridoo, and leave discussions about the U.S. to Americans.

So once again here for the infinitely ignorant - businesses shop for the best deal (from nations/governments). The idiot ideology of liberalism has driven millions of U.S. jobs overseas because liberal taxes, liberal labor laws, and liberal regulations have made it nearly impossible to conduct business in America. When and if liberals wake up to this indisputable reality and cultivate a competitive business environment in the U.S. - jobs will come rushing back. We need to have the _lowest_ corporate tax rate in the world, the least amount of regulations, and the least costly labor laws. When that happens, we will have a flourishing economy. Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. to not experience at least one year of 3% GDP growth or more. After 8 years, that is a clear indication that the liberal ideology is a failed ideology - especially when it comes to economics.
What you just proved, again, is that you are a simpleton janitor, with no idea of what you are talking about.  So, got your opinion.  And you know how much I value the opinion of a mere janitor who can never provide an impartial source.  And acts like a child.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.*

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No.  And I did not say it did.  Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*No. And I did not say it did.*

Then why mention them together as if one caused the other?

It makes you sound dumber than usual.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents *COMBINED*.  He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods.


Seriously - no matter how many times you *lie*, it doesn't change reality. Reagan cut taxes. Gutted them. Then he raised them a little a couple of years later but the net result was _still_ a drastic cut. You're either ignorant or blatantly lying. Either way - your credibility is _completely_ shot.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Hayak is an economic *idiot*, in my personal opinion.  Just like you, *except he is smart*.


Folks...you can't make this stuff up. You can tell Rshermr here didn't finish high school. Definitely more suited for the aborigines and his didgeridoo...


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*No. And I did not say it did.*

Then why mention them together as if one caused the other?

It makes you sound dumber than usual.

*Or are you simply confused, more than usual.
Does truth make you crazy, me boy.  *


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Geezus..._still_ struggling to use this website. _Unbelievable_.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents *COMBINED*.  He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods\  So, there you are, me boy.  As I stated, he greatly increased the size of the federal government.  So, two truths for me, zero for Patriot.
Seriously - no matter how many times you *lie*, it doesn't change reality. Reagan cut taxes. Gutted them. Then he raised them a little a couple of years later but the net result was _still_ a drastic cut. You're either ignorant or blatantly lying. Either way - your credibility is _completely_ shot.

Seriously - no matter how many times you *lie*,
I never ever lie.  You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981.  Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times.  And the amount was not a "little",  Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts.  Because, me boy, he spent like crazy and did not raise taxes enough to pay for his spending.  So, that is why he borrowed more than all the presidents before him combined.  And why the national debt was tripled under his policies.  And why the federal Government was MUCH larger after he was out of office.  
Really, me boy, all truths.  And you have the lack of integrity to say they are lies.  And no capability to show why you say it.  Tacky, me boy, tacky.

So, lets see some evidence of the truth, me boy

"But following his party's losses in the 1982 election, *Reagan largely backed off his efforts at spending cuts even as he continued to offer the small-government rhetoric that helped get him elected. In fact, he went in the opposite direction: His creation of the department of veterans affairs contributed to an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency.   So, Patriot, as I said, he greatly increased the size of the federal government.  One for me, zero for Patriot.  *
And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office.*So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. *Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefit s - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon. * So, there you are, me boy.  As I stated, he greatly increased the size of the federal government.  So, two truths for me, zero for Patriot. * Oh, and as I said, he tripled the national debt.  Three for me, zero for Patriot.  
Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality
*So, there you go, raised taxes ll times.  As I said.  Thats 4 for me, zero for you. *
So, in one paragraph you lied four times, then called me a liar.  But as I proved here, it was just you lying and me telling the truth.  As usual.
As I said, I never lie.  and trying to say I do never ends well for you.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion.  Just like you, except he is smart.


The funny thing about our little inbred, outback boy here is that he had *no* idea who Friedrich Hayak was. He had to Google him real quick and after reading that the man held _three_ doctorate degrees he had to add at the end "except he was smart".

Dude...the argument is _over_. Friedrich Hayak taught us. Milton Friedman taught us. History taught us. Liberalism ends in collapse. From Cuba, to the former U.S.S.R. to Detroit. Centralized economic planning and control is impossible, unsustainable, and detrimental. Only little leeches like Rshermr here desire government control of an economy.

True *liberty* generates the greatest wealth, the greatest innovation, and the greatest prosperity man has ever seen or ever will see. History has proven it and trying to argue differently is just stupid and juvenile. It's the act of the desperate that are either afraid to lose their free handouts or desire to impose their will over others.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I never ever lie.  You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981.  Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times.  And the amount was not a "little",  *Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts*.


Boom! The first time you were honest. Your narrative was how Reagan "raised" taxes. There was a net *decrease* in taxes during his administration. Who the fuck cares that he had to raise it up from his initial deep cuts to rebuild a military decimated by the Dumbocrat leadership that preceded him? The fact is - taxes went down and the economy went from the second worst in U.S. history to one of the most powerful in U.S. history.

See - unlike you - I was here. I lived it. So your uneducated _opinions_ and and your libtard propaganda mean nothing.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 20, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



Yes, the ideologues always conveniently leave out all the other stuff Friedman or any other economist for that matter say, and just babble the stuff they think is great. I agree with Buffet's opinions about economists is general, that they're worthless and worse than useless, pretty much like ideologies are.

I actually laughed out loud at the thread title; it implies that 'economics' is a real science and actually means something. It isn't, except for a very few narrow areas.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I never ever lie.  You see, Reagan lowered taxes in 1981.  Then, over the next few years, he raised taxes 11 times.  And the amount was not a "little",  *Though it was indeed not as much as his tax cuts*.
> ...



Yeah I was there, too; you must have been drunk all those years or something and missed most of it.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Hayak is an economic *idiot*, in my personal opinion.  Just like you, *except he is smart*.
> ...


Let me help you.  Being an economic idiot does not make you stupid.  Being a janitor makes you stupid.  Being an economic idiot means you are ignorant.  Some are ignorant, as they do not understand all things related to the issue.  Some are ignorant, and also stupid, like yourself.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 20, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Conservatives stop at Econ 101 when the real complex world requires you to go through Econ 201 through Econ 505 to fully understand it..



A few useful statistical analysis tools, the rest ivory tower fantasy and nonsense.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.
> ...



I don't buy many of his economic analyses either, or more accurately his solutions, but I do find a lot of his cultural and social observations and commentary interesting and worth reading.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

Picaro said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah I was there, too; you must have been drunk all those years or something and missed most of it.

Poor patriot is a con troll janitor who believes, having read all the conservative talking points, that he is quite smart.  But he always ends up looking stupid, relying on those talking points he loves.  
Ever notice how well cons are able to believe whatever they want to?  Most would be ashamed, cons are proud.  Odd.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 20, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Hayak is an economic idiot, in my personal opinion.  Just like you, except he is smart.
> ...



Wow. An opinion piece from a janitor.  Really, me boy.  did you think anyone cares what your opinion is?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.
> 
> View attachment 86194



I think you don't quite understand "social liberals". For starters all those public works and the safety network require taxes. Paying taxes is a responsibility, so you can't arguie that "it absolves them of any responsibility"... as far as I know infants don't pay taxes to their parents. 

I do like some of Hayek's ideas, although I am not sure if some of them are still relevant. For example: central planners not having enough information to take the right decision. I don't think that argument holds the same weight in the information age. 

And yet, Hayek himself wrote : 

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

F. A. Hayek on social insurance - PNHP's Official Blog

... not quite what one would expect from an Austrian , but... there it is.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.
> ...



Yes. The same goes for Adam Smith and many others, including Friedman for that matter, when one bothers to actually read them as opposed to running around spouting isolated slogans and memes out of context of what many of them meant. Ideologues don't like that, though, it defeats the whole point of being a mindless bot with comic book 'philosophies'.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


 
Yes. The same goes for Adam Smith and many others, including Friedman for that matter, when one bothers to actually read them as opposed to running around spouting isolated slogans and memes out of context of what many of them meant. Ideologues don't like that, though, it defeats the whole point of being a mindless bot with comic book 'philosophies'

Thing is, most of the strange  and mindless posts that include slogans and memes  that have no rationality behind them come from conservatives, mostly trolls and tools of the folks writing the con talking points and viral emails.  Along with fox and over 100 well financed nut case conservative web sites, it is possible to never come up for air or rational thought.
Years ago, the far right wealthy benefactors needed to study why they lost so many elections and what to do about it.  Six of the things they found were that, among the weak minded, they all wanted, included:
1.  To be told what to believe, because studying the facts was too much work.
2.  See that there was a group that believed something which they could also believe and be part of the group.  Group think, for short.
3.  Needed a villain.  For them, the villain was "liberals" and "socialists", not as whom they were but as whom they defined them as by saying it over and over.  .
4.  Needed to repeat things over and over and over, and the weak minded would believe.  Something simple like liberals were stupid and bad.  
5.  The weak minded, with new "knowledge", would think themselves to be superior and smart.
6.  Those weak minded now believing themselves to be smart, needed to be angry.  HATERS, as we call them today.
Those setting up the right wing drivel studied the nazi's, and the Soviet communists, and took their years of study on brainwashing the masses.  And have been using that methodology since the early 1970's.  And they know that about 20% or so of the population are subject to that brainwashing.  And that they have the money to execute the plan, and have been doing so for decades.  And they know the other side does not have the ability to establish such a campaign, lacking money and a population willing to be led by the nose.
Excuse the long winded response.  I am an old guy who studied economics in and out of college, and began wondering about the right wing and it's coordinated efforts years ago.  I then spent an a large slice of my time reading those that studied the phenomena from inside and outside, and what they learned.  Nothing I say is my opinion, but rather from studies by others.  So, I deserve no credit for what I say, only blame if I am wrong.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



I'm not any more fond of left wing ideologues than I am right wingers, but yeah, this post pretty much sums up right wing cranks, 'libertarians' especially; little of it reads as anything about real life economics, they're just some attempt at pasting a patina of pseudo-intellectual 'respectability' over mere sociopathic selfishness and class warfare.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



I agree completely.  And libertarians are a particular interest for me, having decided long ago that the movement is simply a method for pushers of the concept to become rich.  
Left wing agenda is still agenda.  I always prefer truth.  It is easier on you than trying to justify the "belief" of some other person based on their wants and needs.  
The problem for left wing ideologues is they lack the finances and the audience of the right.  Turns out the left wingers get pissed if they are lied to.  Which is why there will never be a liberal version of fox.  Liberals just will not listen.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> I'm not any more fond of left wing ideologues than I am right wingers, but yeah, this post pretty much sums up right wing cranks, 'libertarians' especially; little of it reads as anything about real life economics, they're just some attempt at pasting a patina of pseudo-intellectual 'respectability' over mere sociopathic selfishness and class warfare.


It's always hilarious to listen to liberals deny reality. Forget about economists for a moment - history has taught us everything we need to know about what works and what doesn't. Everything that liberals desire and insist on was implemented in Cuba. It lead to total collapse. It was implemented in the former U.S.S.R. It lead to total collapse. It was implemented in Cambodia. It lead to total collapse. Hell, even Detroit (which had over 60 years of a Democrat mayor, a Democrat-controlled city council, and the biggest and most powerful unions in the world) collapsed and had to file for bankruptcy. Liberal economic policy is a *failed* ideology and anyone with an _ounce_ of integrity would admit it.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not any more fond of left wing ideologues than I am right wingers, but yeah, this post pretty much sums up right wing cranks, 'libertarians' especially; little of it reads as anything about real life economics, they're just some attempt at pasting a patina of pseudo-intellectual 'respectability' over mere sociopathic selfishness and class warfare.
> ...



I love comedy posts. Keep em coming. If I run into anybody who resembles any of those straw men here I'll send them around.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not any more fond of left wing ideologues than I am right wingers, but yeah, this post pretty much sums up right wing cranks, 'libertarians' especially; little of it reads as anything about real life economics, they're just some attempt at pasting a patina of pseudo-intellectual 'respectability' over mere sociopathic selfishness and class warfare.
> ...



You sound really confused. You are putting in the same place very different economic and political regimes.
I can see why you want to draw some comparision between Cuba and the USSR both of which were communist dictatorships ( Cuba still is ) . But putting Detroit in the same basket? Detroit is a city, within a free market economy working in a fully mature democratic regime and arguably de-industrialization, automation and competition had a larger role in the crash than you might expect.
  Detroit failed not because of unions ( which are the norm for large companies in Germany ), but because industry moved elsewhere and other companies could provide cars at better prices. Sory, market and industry crashes are part of the normal operation of capitalism, which is something I've been saying all along the thread : capitalism is not stable.  The challenge is how we cope with such inestability, once again, those jobs are gone. People will have to retool their skills and find jobs in other sectors, but as I said , those changes require a lot of time.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


Yeah....keep denying _reality_. It's such a bright strategy.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Lol like you have some idea about 'reality'... Funny stuff.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> *Detroit failed not because of unions* ( which are the norm for large companies in Germany ), but because industry moved elsewhere and *other companies could provide cars at better prices*.


I _literally_ fell out of my chair laughing at this little gem. _Why_ could "other companies provide cars at better prices"? Because they didn't have Detroit's costly unions and Detroit's devastating taxes.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Lol like you have some idea about 'reality'... Funny stuff.


You can't dispute _one_ thing I said. Did Detroit _not_ file for bankruptcy cupcake? Did Cuba not go from a prosperous nation into perpetual poverty genius?

You're not even _attempting_ to dispute what was said because you know you can't.


----------



## Picaro (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Lol like you have some idea about 'reality'... Funny stuff.
> ...



Of course I can ... and ...



> You're not even _attempting_ to dispute what was said because you know you can't.


 
... you are absolutely right, I'm not even attempting to play " I Touched You Last!!!!" with a ranting moron who only has the same old tropes and memes your ilk have been spouting for going two decades on message boards. You aren't any kind of challenge, and you're too ignorant to know you aren't.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> I can see why you want to draw some comparision between Cuba and the USSR both of which were communist dictatorships ( Cuba still is ) . But putting Detroit in the same basket?


Detroit followed the same playbook as Cuba, the U.S.S.R., etc. Modern day liberalism is no difference from socialism which is no difference from communism, which is no different from fascism. It's all the same playbook - centralized *control* and distribution of a small portion split among the large masses. Here is world-renowned economist Friedrich Hayak more than 60 years ago observing what you _still_ haven't figured out because you prefer ideology over reality:

“fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce, this has become almost a commonplace”

*Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.”* University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek on iBooks


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > You're not even _attempting_ to dispute what was said because you know you can't.
> ...


Bwahahaha! You keep responding so you _are_ playing "Got You Last". In fact - that's all you're doing because you can't dispute what was said. Everything I stated was 100% *fact*. Detroit has had over 60 years of Dumbocrat control and they did file bankruptcy.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > *Detroit failed not because of unions* ( which are the norm for large companies in Germany ), but because industry moved elsewhere and *other companies could provide cars at better prices*.
> ...



Did you notice the part where I said that unions were the norm in large companies?
How do you imagine unions are not a problem in Germany?

So, I'll have to resort to that center of left wigh propaganda ... the forbes magazine

"against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany."

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much

There you go patriot...


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I can see why you want to draw some comparision between Cuba and the USSR both of which were communist dictatorships ( Cuba still is ) . But putting Detroit in the same basket?
> ...



No one is advocating for a fully centrally planned dictatorship. Look back at my posts. Indeed there is talk about having a safety net to get a minimum level of living and education ( which even Hayek was in favour of ) and using the government to offset the inherent instability and ineqality of capitalism. 
  In my view capitalism is like a savage horse: sure, it is fast ( a lot faster than going on foot) , but you should  put some restraints on it or face the consequences.

oh, and correct they  Hayak typo ... it hurts my eyes.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Hey genius - BMW and Mercedes are high end automobiles. The low end of their line is generally in the $50k and the median is around $70k. Detroit does *not* compete with them. At all. You're comparing apples & oranges. Detroit lost out to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.

So yeah - Gernany can afford to pay their BMW assembly line workers $67 per hour in total compensation when they are charging $90k per automobile. Let me know when you want to have a discussion rooted in reality. I'll make my self available.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

Picaro said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



His source for his "reality" is the bat shit crazy con web sites and "think" tanks.  Poor boy has never seen a reality he liked or agreed with.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Actually - almost a 100% of your cohorts are advocating exactly that. We already have an ungodly amount of illegal and unconstitutional regulations. We have nothing close to a "free market". We can't decide what to pay our own employees, we can't decide whether or not we want to offer benefits, we can't decide _who_ to hire - it literally never ends. About the only thing a business owner can decide is what they want their logo to look like and I'm sure the Dumbocrats are working on controlling that as we speak.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Says the Australian who lives with aborigines, mooches off society like a parasite, and never ran a company in his life.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Oh, you mean like Volkswagen and Opel.  Your ideas look similar to what I would expect of a janitor.  And again, you do not have any chance of discussing reality.  Besides you loose every time you try.
I _literally_ fell out of my chair laughing at this little gem. _Why_ could "other companies provide cars at better prices"? Because they didn't have Detroit's costly unions and Detroit's devastating taxes.
Most congenital idiots take a few years to learn how to sit in a chair.
So, we should not try to believe a janitor.  Lets see what expert sources say relative to the subject.
1.  The american car companies are doing fine, after running into the great republican recession of 2008.
2.  Japanese car companies are all heavily unionized, and doing really well, me boy.  As are the producers in Germany, Sweden, Japan, and Korea.

Here is a source to help you understand some of the problems american car companies had.

*1.DEMAND SHIFT AND UNCERTAIN ENERGY POLICY*
Cole says that "The first shot was* the dramatic rise in energy prices this past summer.* That caused a rapid mix shift in vehicles--and had a major impact on profitability." GM, Ford and Chrysler have relied on SUVs and trucks for the majority of their profits. Those vehicles commanded high sticker prices and by the late nineties made up 50 percent of the U.S. car market. When demand for the big vehicles dropped quickly and customers went for smaller, less expensive, less profitable cars, auto companies had two major issues to deal with: A loss of revenue and a backlog of unwanted trucks. Cole adds, "A big factor is our lack of an energy policy in this country. We just haven't had one. When we do things like corn-to-ethanol that don't have a foundation in economics or technology, you're really kind of teeing up to a situation where you're going to have a problem."

*2.THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN  (The Great Republican Recession of 2008)*
"*The Big Kahuna in this is the financial meltdown,*" said Cole, "When you're down to 10 or 11 million light-vehicle sales a year, that is such a precipitous fall even from a recessionary standpoint. What has really caused the problem is lack of cash." Wall Street's problems have hit GM in two big ways: The company can't borrow money to ride out the storm, and the credit squeeze has dramatically hindered car sales. The auto industry lives on credit as do its customers, so when access to car loans or leases is limited, sales fall off a cliff. Yearly auto sales in the U.S. have hovered around the 15 to 16 million mark for the past few years and many analysts believe the total for 2008 could be as low as 10 million--the lowest in more than a decade.

*3. LEGACY COSTS*
Every car GM makes carries "legacy costs"--the costs of providing healthcare and pensions to scores of retired workers. For every GM worker, there are about 10 dependants, which are defined as retired workers and their families. According to Cole, "When the international car companies came to the U.S., the move stuck the domestics with a very large disadvantage related to legacy costs. And that's $2000 a car." That two grand must be built into the sticker price of any new GM car and truck. And that's money on top of developing, producing and marketing a car--costs that Honda, Toyota and others don't have. It makes competing difficult for the domestic automakers, "like playing basketball with a bowling ball," according to Cole. GM's per-hour labor rate for car assembly is about $75 per hour, compared to $40 to $45 for other car companies. That particular disadvantage, says Cole, will be "gone by the end of next year," when a new labor agreement goes into effect.

*4. SUB-PAR QUALITY AND LACKLUSTER CARS*
*Back in the early '80s, while GM president Roger Smith fell in love with the idea of automating workers out of car factories, Toyota and others focused on refining their production techniques and produced much higher quality cars. Customers left GM's brands en masse. *The company's market share has fallen from a high of just over 50 percent in 1962 to around 23 percent in 2007. In recent times, the quality gap has narrowed considerably but "perception trails reality," commented Cole. Getting those customers back would require a herculean effort. Vehicle's like GM's very first attempt at a crossover--the sub-par 2001 Aztec--didn't help. Cars like that left customers will little incentive to return.

*5. GLOBAL SLOWDOWN*
GM operates in 41 countries, and if its U.S. operation has been in decades of decline, other markets have been growing, particularly in Asia. But the financial shock has spread across the globe and sales are down everywhere. In effect, GM is bleeding from several wounds. As the largest of the Big Three, GM has been the focus of the media spotlight. But Ford and Chrysler are facing similar problems. And of course, thanks to many of the same factors, even healthy car companies are feeling the pain. The domestic auto companies weren't the only ones that capitalized on our thirst for light trucks. Half of Toyota's offerings are trucks and minivans. The difference is, Toyota doesn't come into this tough period already weakened by past mistakes.
GM in Crisis—5 Reasons Why America's Largest Car Company Teeters on the Edge

So there you go.  Now, the big problem is that with no single payer health system, auto companies had to pay workers health care costs.  In all the other countries, the car companies did not have to pay for health care.  It was paid for by the gov, from workers direct payments to a single source. - the government was the single payer.  

But nice try, me boy.  However, using con talking points as a source ensures this is not going to end well for you.  Again.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Did someone just hear a janitor questioning the work ethic of a person who attended college through grad school, paid his way entirely and ended up with no debt, and worked at responsible jobs with responsibilities for lots of workers for over 45 years?  So, The poor boy can not provide any kind of expertise, is unwilling to find impartial sources, and makes unfounded attacks instead of trying to do so.  Yup, we are all impressed with you, Patriot.  Thanks for again admitting you are a simple con troll with no ability to address the subject.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Lol like you have some idea about 'reality'... Funny stuff.
> ...


Uh-oh.  Again, this is not going to end well for you.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



And volkswagen too ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> So yeah - Gernany can afford to pay their BMW assembly line workers $67 per hour in total compensation when they are charging $90k per automobile. Let me know when you want to have a discussion rooted in reality. I'll make my self available.



yes its amazing luck!! They get top dollar and top profit for see how rich I am cars that are not one bit better than cars half the price. And lets not forget that BWM's biggest plant is in the non union part of the USA where they pay $20/hour!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> No one is advocating for a fully centrally planned dictatorship..



you are but you simply lack the IQ to know it. Libcommie regulation  is more extensive than ever now and what do liberal commies like Sanders and Clinton want???? Correct!!!!, more regulation. Its Never Enough( read book by that title)  because communism fails and to a liberal that means  more communism not less is needed. 1+1=2


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > So yeah - Gernany can afford to pay their BMW assembly line workers $67 per hour in total compensation when they are charging $90k per automobile. Let me know when you want to have a discussion rooted in reality. I'll make my self available.
> ...



And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)


like Audi Porsche Bentley  Bugatti Lambourghini Ducati???


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make. 

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> "Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."


and would be bankrupt if they had to manufacture in Germany and didn't luckily make a huge profit on average cars


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


Because two of those three are _extremely_ hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers.

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the _world_. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

The 10 Most Expensive Mercedes In The World


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 21, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Lets see :
  BMW revenues : 80b
  Daimler revenues : 149 b 
  VW revenues : 213

It is clear that VW is by far the largest player , the one producing the cheapest cars... by far. 

Second, Germany has also a high tax rate . In 1995 it was even higher than that of the US  ( 55% ) and today it is slightly lower ( 29%). 

Germany Corporate Tax Rate | 1995-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 21, 2016)

And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)[/QUOTE]
Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc.[/QUOTE]

I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

Because two of those three are _extremely_ hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers. 

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the _world_. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

Sorry, me boy.  Us companies pay low tax rates.  See below, and you will see that German companies pay higher rates than those of the US companies.  And it will help you to try to understand the types of taxes and what companies pay.

It has the highest PUBLISHED tax rate.  But really, no one cares.  Because no one pays the published rate, unless they just like giving money away.  What they pay, me poor ignorant con troll, is the effective  tax rate, and that is not the highest in the world by any means. 




"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of* 12.6% *in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.
Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010."
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Relative to those lucky German auto makers, truth is, they pay a higher total ta rate than US car companies do.  Next.

While Diamler is very profitable, it is not as profitable as Toyota and VW.  And just a bit more so than GM and Ford.

*Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why?Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora*
Here are the top 10 according to Forbes 2013 Global 2000 list:

1) Volkswagen Group- Volkswagen Group
2) Toyota Motor- Japan
3) Daimler- Germany
4) Ford Motor- U.S.
5) BMW Group- Germany
6) General Motors- U.S.
7) Nissan Motor- Japan
8) Honda Motor- Japan
9) Hyundai Motor- South Korea
10) SAIC Motor- China
Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
> Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc
> 
> I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
> ...



_Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s__, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore._

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s__, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore._
> 
> Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?



Liberals just can't grasp reality over ideology or basic economics. There are hundreds of billions of dollars overseas propping up other nations while it could be doing _wonders_ for the U.S. economy.

We're in competition for businesses. The nation that offers the best deals (lowest taxes, least labor laws, minimal regulations) wins those businesses - and the subsequent jobs and tax revenues that come with it.

Here is a basic math text for our friends on the left. Despite reaching the highest valuation in history and being flush with $178 billion in cash, Apple took out a loan recently. Why? Because paying the loan back with interest was actually more cost effective than bringing their own $178 billion back into the U.S. and paying taxes on it. So you know how much the government brought in on taxes from it? $0.00. Liberal stupidity at its finest:

40% of $0.00 = $0.00

10% of $178,000,000,000 = $17,800,000,000

That's right - the federal government could have had $17 _billion_ in tax revenue and the U.S. economy could have over a hundred billion floating around. Instead, liberalism delivered $0.00 (as it always does).


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > _Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s__, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore._
> ...


So, that's great that we have a janitor posting drivel about Apple, mostly untrue.  And, because as a janitor, and being very knowledgeable about cleaning solutions, the boy expects we should take his word on Apple, and he should not be expected to provide an impartial source.  
But, with Patriot, you have to expect lies.  And so here is a source in the business of tracking the truth about taxes.  They are an actual expert on taxes and those ripping off the system.  And by looking at their information, you can actually learn something.  Though they have no janitors writing for them:

*"APPLE IS A BAD APPLE WHEN IT COMES TO PAYING ITS TAXES*

 The Apple Corporation *wants lawmakers in Washington to once again grant a repatriation tax holiday – this time for up to $1.7 trillion in profits that multinational corporations are holding offshore*. Federal law allows corporations to “defer” paying U.S. income taxes on these foreign profits until they are brought back or “repatriated” to the United States.

This tax holiday is being sold to the public as a boon to new investment and job creation as it was sold to Congress in 2004 ( Hmmmmm.  Under W ) when the first repatriation holiday was enacted. Under that scheme, corporations were able to bring their profits back and pay a tax rate of no more than 5.25 percent – rather than the statutory rate of 35 percent or a lower effective tax rate.

*Numerous reports, including one by the Congressional Research Service,http://www.usmessageboard.com/file:...e When It Comes To Paying Its Taxes.doc#_edn1 found that “there is no evidence that [the tax holiday] increased U.S. investment or jobs, and it cost taxpayers billions,” according to a senior U.S. Treasury Department official.[ii]*_

Apple may even be working with many of its multinational colleagues to push for a territorial tax system, another huge giveaway to profitable corporations at the expense of all American taxpayers. A territorial tax system is in effect a permanent repatriation tax holiday. Under it, U.S. corporations would never have to pay U.S. corporate taxes on their overseas profits, thereby encouraging companies to use numerous tax dodges to shift capital to overseas tax havens that assess little or no corporate income tax, risking wages and jobs at home.

I*t’s time for Apple to start paying its fair share of taxes and for the U.S. Congress to reform the tax system so that companies like Apple can no longer defer paying taxes on their profits no matter where they are earned. If deferral were ended it would not matter which tax loopholes a company used to shift its profits to overseas tax havens – those profits would still be subject to U.S. taxes, minus the taxes paid in the jurisdiction where they were claimed as earned.*

Below is a compilation of ways that Apple currently avoids paying its fair share of taxes:


*Apple’s stated effective federal corporate income tax rate of about 25 percent is well below the statutory rate of 35 percent, which Apple and other large multinational corporations complain so much about.* Apple’s SEC filings show effective tax rates of approximately 25.2 percent, 24.2 percent, and 24.4 percent for 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.[iii] Apple’s profits those years were $55.8 billion, $34.2 billion and $18.5 billion, respectively.[iv]
But *doubts have been raised about the accuracy of Apple’s claimed federal tax bill due to the use of foreign tax dodges and other loopholes:*


Tax Analysts:* “If Apple followed usual reporting practices, its reported worldwide effective tax rate would have been 15 instead of 24 percent,” in 2011*.[v]
New York Times: “[*Apple] paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion [in 2011], a tax rate of 9.8 percent.* (Apple does not disclose what portion of those payments was in the United States, or what portion is assigned to previous or future years.) By comparison, Wal-Mart last year paid worldwide cash taxes of $5.9 billion on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a tax rate of 24 percent, which is about average for non-tech companies.”[vi]

*Apple had $82.6 billion in offshore profit holdings in 2012, much of it in tax havens, on which the company owes U.S. federal income taxes.*
*Apple increased its profits held offshore by more than 50 percent over 2011, when it had $54.3 billion offshore*.[vii]
Apple says it would owe $28.5 billion on these profits if it brings them back to the United States – $14.7 billion in deferred tax liabilities overseas and another $13.8 billion in “unrecognized deferred tax liability” from money it intends to keep perpetually out of the U.S.[viii] That’s nearly a 35 percent tax rate, which means nearly all of Apple’s overseas profits are in tax havens that charge little if any corporate income tax.
According to The New York Times: “As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.”[ix]

*Apple pays less than 2 percent tax on its foreign profits. *As Tax-News.com notes, “During the year to end-September this year, Apple’s effective tax rate was 25.2%; comparable with the 24.2% and 24.4% it paid in 2011 and 2010, respectively. While its foreign earnings have therefore been increasing rapidly, it has maintained effective tax rates on non-US earnings at 1.94%, 2.5% and 1.24% in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.”[x]

*Apple uses foreign tax havens to claim that just 30 percent of its profits are from the United States.* It’s quite likely that much of Apple’s profits were actually earned in the United States but have been artificially shifted to foreign tax havens to avoid U.S. corporate income taxes. According to Tax Analysts:[xi]
“Apple does most of its research in the United States. Most of its key employees are in the United States. Fifty-four percent of its long-lived assets, 69 percent of its retail stores, and 39 percent of its sales are in the United States.”
“In Apple’s case, can there be any doubt that most of its value is created inside the United States? If we assume, conservatively, that 50 percent of profits should be U.S. sourced, then Apple’s federal taxes would have been $2.4 billion more in 2011.”
“Given the pivotal importance to Apple’s success of product design and other functions performed in the United States, one could reasonably expect U.S. profits to be 70 percent of the worldwide total. In this case, payments to the U.S. government would have been $4.8 billion more in 2011.”

*Foreign corporate profits are not subject to U.S. tax unless and until they are brought back (or “repatriated”) to the United States, which encourages U.S. companies to ship profits and jobs overseas.*
At least $1.7 trillion in U.S. corporate taxes are being held offshore today.[xii]
*This gaping loophole costs the U.S. Treasury $90 billion a year by letting corporations ship profits and jobs overseas.**[*xiii]
Ending the current practice of deferral, which allows corporations to avoid U.S. income taxes on offshore profits until they are brought back to the United States, would raise $590 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.[xiv]  Ending deferral would result in taxing the global profits of U.S. corporations minus the taxes those companies pay to foreign governments (the “foreign tax credit”).
Adopting a “territorial tax system” would make the current problems worse by eliminating all U.S. taxation on overseas corporate income. It is estimated that such a system would encourage U.S. corporations to create 800,000 jobs in low-tax countries rather than here at home,[xv] and would increase the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years, according to thePresident’s Economic Advisory Board.[xvi]

*U.S. taxpayers provided $3.2 billion in tax subsidies for Apple’s rich corporate pay packages that the company never actually pays.* Apple enjoyed $3.2 billion in stock option tax breaks from 2010 to 2012 – 12 percent of the $27.3 billion in excess stock option tax benefits granted to 280 Fortune 500 companies studied by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).[xvii] Some argue that this tax break encourages excessive corporate pay packages. Here’s how it works, according to CTJ: “Most big corporations give their executives (and sometimes other employees) options to buy the company’s stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, corporations can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it’s worth (while employees report this difference as taxable wages).”

*Apple’s tax dodging makes other industries pay more.* “Over the last two years, the 71 technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — including Apple, Google, Yahoo and Dell — reported paying worldwide cash taxes at a rate that, on average, was a third less than other S.& P. companies’,” according to The New York Times.[xviii]

*Most of Apple’s undistributed foreign profits appear to be invested in the U.S. tax free.* Apple complains that its foreign profits are sitting offshore and not able to be invested in America because it does not want to pay its effective corporate income tax rate. But a recent U.S. Senate study found that between 76 percent and 100 percent of Apple’s undistributed accumulated foreign earnings in 2010 were either held in U.S. bank accounts or in U.S. investments.[xix]

*Apple was a member of the WIN America Campaign, a short-lived effort fighting for a corporate repatriation tax holiday in 2011.[xx]?"*
*Bad Apple

*
So, since nearly every republican in congress and their brain dead con trolls want to see taxes not paid by corporations, who pay their politicians and web sites and writers of talking points.  But they are fine with us paying taxes.  And covering for the corporations who do not pay taxes.
In addition, it is apparently not possible for a janitor to find an impartial source to find the truth.  Nor would a janitor care.  Much easier to simply troll the con talking points on bat shit crazy con sites.  Why use your brain.  If you had one.
If you looked at the last tax holiday, and the current efforts at politicians to get a new one for their benefactors, the rate to bring the hidden money back to the us would not be 10%, but closer to 5%.  But, being a con troll, it is simply easier to lie.
*
*_


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
> ...


If you are a con tool, they should not.  To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.  Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada.  Others  companies can easily take up the slack.  And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes.  Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.  If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or.  Get the cons to pay your fair share.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why is it you claim everything is "untrue" but then are unable to articulate _what_ exactly was "untrue"? What part of what I said was "untrue"?

Listening to you drone on about stuff you don't understand is mind-numbing. There is a reason you've spent your life as a ward of the state junior. There is a reason you're illiterate. And you still haven't told us what country you are from. Why are you so ashamed of it?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And so here is a source in the business of tracking the truth about taxes.  They are an actual expert on taxes and those ripping off the system.  And by looking at their information, you can actually learn something.


"American's For Tax Fairness"?!? That's your source?!? Bwaahahahahha!!! It's a bunch of libtards like yourself who are jealous of successful people - just like _you_ are.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If you are a con tool, they should not.  To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.  *Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada*.  Others  companies can easily take up the slack.  And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes.  Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.  If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or.  Get the cons to pay your fair share.


More "brilliant" economic policies from libtards who can't hold a job and who mooch off of government. So not only do corporations avoid paying taxes because of idiot libtard policies, but now they want to "simply shut them down" so we don't have all of those jobs as well. Rshermr continues to take stupid to unprecedented levels. But I guess that's what happens when you grow up in a 3rd world country. The education in those nations is less than stellar. And it really shows with Rshermr here.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals just can't grasp reality over ideology or basic economics. There are hundreds of billions of dollars overseas propping up other nations while it could be doing _wonders_ for the U.S. economy.
> ...



Rshermr has actually achieved the epitome of stupidity here. He claims what I said about Apple was "untrue" and then posts some bullet points which proves everything I said was 100% true. 

This dumb-fuck has the reading comprehension of a 3-year old. Now wonder he's ashamed to admit that he's an illegal alien mooching off of America.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Don't you ever get tired of looking like an ignorant buffoon? Everything I said was 100% accurate.

Apple just took out a $6.5 billion loan even though it's sitting on $178 billion in cash


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.*

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

*If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.* 

They already pay US taxes on US profits.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.
> ...


Yes - his "rational" reason is that he and his fellow libtards are _exceptionally_ *greedy*. How do you expect him to mooch off of society like the parasite that he is and still live a lavish lifestyle unless he's allowed to tax everyone at a 98% rate or more?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.
*
You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
*
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!
*
You did.
*
For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?

Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

*


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.*

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

*If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.*

They already pay US taxes on US profits.
Some, but not what they should pay.  Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to.  The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do.  Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves.  So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag.  How it will work out, we shall see.  Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Some, but not what they should pay.*

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.

*Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.*

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*You see, me boy, led to does not mean caused.

led to > synonyms

caused

1
brought on

0
led on v. & phr. v.

-1
flowed into phr. v. & v.

-1
provoked to do idi. & exp*

5 Led To Synonyms and Led To Antonyms in Led To Thesaurus

I found great synonyms for "led to" on the new Thesaurus.com!

The thesaurus says you're full of shit.

*Led to means that things that politicians did in response to the lack of revenue caused by the tax cut caused the congress to cut programs and jobs.* 

Cool.
Which programs did Congress cut, how many jobs did Congress cut, to cause the recession that started in July 1981?

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

I guess responding to the lack of revenue from a tax cut that passed in August 1981 caused them to travel back in time?

_Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_
LOL!


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
Typical con troll response from a con troll.  What a surprise.
US companies profits include profits made overseas.

*Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.*
No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.[/QUOTE]
Typical con troll response from a con troll.  What a surprise.
Many pay zero taxes.  I never do.  
The average for corporations in the US is 12%.  I never pay that small a percentage.  
So, no, me ignorant con troll.  I pay more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*They pay a lower percentage than I.*

What percentage do you pay?

*The average for corporations was around 12%.*

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE
Yes - his "rational" reason is that he and his fellow libtards are _exceptionally_ *greedy*.  Comical post by the janitor who has never done anything in his life.  Funny. How do you expect him to mooch off of society like the parasite that he is and still live a lavish lifestyle unless he's allowed to tax everyone at a 98% rate or more?  And to prove he is a stupid con troll, he makes a personal attack which is totally untrue and completely stupid.  Got it.  Jesus, you must be in pain from that much stupid.  But thanks for making it clear that you are a clown.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Government intervention? More like the Federal Reserve trying to fine tune an economy they don't understand. 

Avoid a crash by not selling into it? Just exactly how would that be accomplished? The markets crash when the collective perception of value shifts.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> 
> As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.



Who are you going to blame on the next crash?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*They pay a lower percentage than I.*

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions.  I would if you want to publish your taxes.  Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy.  Cons lie typically. OK?  You publish, then I publish.  

*The average for corporations was around 12%.*

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.  
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy.  Just trying to help educate you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


_
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just __12.6% of worldwide income__ in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates_

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income.

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just __12.6% of worldwide income__ in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates_

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.
Why, me boy, would you pay 35% on profits when the average profitable company pays 12.6% on worldwide profits, and under 20% on us profits.  They must be the morons, like you, eh.   According to the source you site above (same web page):

"Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S."

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits.  It becomes an accounting issue.  You pay accountants to handle that.  No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions.  And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the statutory   rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less. Much less. 
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.
Or less.  Often much less.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".

Actually, that was really irrelevant.  Kind of like you.  Oh, and obviously ignorant.  Like you.

Since you are a con troll, of course you would lie like a rug about the tax amnesty, or holiday, program.  Really, me boy, you are easy to predict. And for the good of our country  it would be Todster stupid to impliment it again.  
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income.  Depends, me boy, on the laws.  And laws are subject to change.  

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.
Wow.  A baseless insult.  Just like you were a con troll.  Oh, forgot, you are indeed a con troll.
But as a con troll, you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly.  Issue is, and was, where should taxes be paid.  That transfers are made and that they may be legal, or not, is a legal issue.  What you are suggesting, however, is that businesses in this country are stupid like you, and therefor will pay 35% when in fact they almost NEVER do.  And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations. They should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in.  Which for US companies, is the US.  Typical con look at things.  Because, of course, those very companies pay big time to get politicians to change the laws to allow them to stiff the US.  As a con troll, as long as the corporation pays less, it is good.  The issue is, most people do not agree with you.  You are, me boy, WRONG.  And as a con troll, you are pushing the con talking points.  Always.
Thats pretty cool, though, isn't it.  As a con troll, you just post con talking points and use con justification.  You do not even have to read the articles you use as sources.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits.*

You earn profits in the U.K., you report profits (and pay taxes) in the U.K.

*Wow.  A baseless insult.*

Your idiocy is well known.

*No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions.*

Every multi-national corporation pays taxes in multiple jurisdictions, you idiot.

*And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the stated rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less.*

Of course not, they keep their overseas earnings....overseas.

*you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly*

Those are the corporate rates in the US and U.K.

*And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations,*

False.
*
they should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in.*

They do. And in all those other countries, the rate is lower than in the US.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Love your lying link.

_• Gas and electric utility companies enjoyed the lowest effective federal tax rate over the five years, paying a tax rate of only 2.9 percent. This industry’s taxes declined steadily over the five years, from 12.8 percent in 2008 to –1.8 percent in 2012. *These results were largely driven by the ability of these companies to claim accelerated depreciation tax breaks on their capital investments.* Only one of the 27 utilities in our sample paid more than half the 35 percent statutory tax rate during the 2008-12 period.
_
Ummmm....you can't say they paid a lower rate on their profits because they could depreciate....because profits are after depreciation is subtracted. Durr.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%. And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here. Doesn't really make sense. Here is reality-

The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.
By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent (26.1 percent weighted by GDP). Africa has the highest simple average at 28.77 percent.
Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.9 percent.
Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past twelve years.
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*

Shhhh....don't bother him with facts.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
It was actually 12.6% but sometimes my memory leaves off a few tenths.

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*
Really, me boy.  You are not that ignorant.  Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.  Others for foreign laws requiring companies to have operations in their country.  What do you think, me boy.  Quick.  To the con talking points site.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh, toddster, that comment ... why would they have to pay on foreign profits? Comming from you ? 

Of course , you know why ( it is probably just a rethorical question I guess). 

What I find unsettling is the fact that you are so cynical as to ask the question. Because, of course , you know how corporations work and you know exactly what financial strategies they use to offshore the profits. Mind you , you have probably helped in the process.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot, post: 15101936, member: 29707"]
"Rshermr, post: 15101866, member: 37424"]A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I.  A number paid None.  The average for corporations was around 12%.

*They pay a lower percentage than I.*

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions.  I would if you want to publish your taxes.  Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy.  Cons lie typically. OK?  You publish, then I publish.  

*The average for corporations was around 12%.*

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.  
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy.  Just trying to help educate you.[/QUOTE]

Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%. And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here. Doesn't really make sense. Here is reality-

The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.
By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent (26.1 percent weighted by GDP). Africa has the highest simple average at 28.77 percent.
Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.9 percent.
Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past twelve years.
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015
[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
It was actually 12.6% but sometimes my memory leaves off a few tenths.

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*
Really, me boy.  You are not that ignorant.  Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.  Others for foreign laws requiring companies to have operations in their country.  What do you think, me boy.  Quick.  To the con talking points site.
I mean, only con trolls believe the main reason companies move parts or all of their companies out of the US is Taxes.  Oh, forgot again.  You are not a reasoning human.  You are a con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

"BuckToothMoron, post: 15103268, member: 57192"]





Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ="Rshermr, post: 15101866, member: 37424""Toddsterpatriot, post: 15100144, member: 29707"]
> ...


A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I.  A number paid None.  The average for corporations was around 12%.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*They pay a lower percentage than I.*

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions.  I would if you want to publish your taxes.  Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy.  Cons lie typically. OK?  You publish, then I publish.  

*The average for corporations was around 12%.*

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.  
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy.  Just trying to help educate you.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%. And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here. Doesn't really make sense. Here is reality-

The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.  Which rational people know means nothing.  It is not what corporations pay.  That would be the effective tax rate.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.  Again, you are talking published rates, not rates paid.  
By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent (26.1 percent weighted by GDP). Africa has the highest simple average at 28.77 percent.  Published or paid?
Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.9 percent.
Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past twelve years.
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015
Use of the tax foundation, a conservative source with heavy ties to ALEC, is bad proof of anything.    Try an impartial source.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*
Oh, toddster, that comment ... why would they have to pay on foreign profits? Comming from you ?*

So why? We're the only major economy that tries to tax worldwide income of our corporations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot, post: 15101936, member: 29707"]
> "Rshermr, post: 15101866, member: 37424"]A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
> They pay a lower percentage than I.  A number paid None.  The average for corporations was around 12%.
> 
> ...



* Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.*

Inversions don't move production. So why invert?


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot, post: 15101936, member: 29707"]
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
* Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.*

Inversions don't move production. So why invert?
To avoid taxes.  Because they can.  And because republicans have kept it legal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yes. Inversions help reduce their taxes.
Weird thing to bother with if the US tax rate was really 12.6%.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> "BuckToothMoron, post: 15103268, member: 57192"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

*They pay a lower percentage than I.*

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions.  I would if you want to publish your taxes.  Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy.  Cons lie typically. OK?  You publish, then I publish.  

*The average for corporations was around 12%.*

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.  
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy.  Just trying to help educate you.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%. And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here. Doesn't really make sense. Here is reality-

The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.  Which rational people know means nothing.  It is not what corporations pay.  That would be the effective tax rate.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.  Again, you are talking published rates, not rates paid.  
By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent (26.1 percent weighted by GDP). Africa has the highest simple average at 28.77 percent.  Published or paid?
Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.9 percent.
Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past twelve years.
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015
Use of the tax foundation, a conservative source with heavy ties to ALEC, is bad proof of anything.    Try an impartial source.  [/QUOTE]

Again, provide your source for what they actually pay, and answer the question why there are so many inversions. You can't have it both ways, say on one hand that they don't pay enough, and then on the other hand insist that we put a halt to corporate inversions. If the effective tax rate is so low, why do they leave. I know, it sucks to be stuck when you arguments don't balance.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Toddsterpatriot, post: 15101936, member: 29707"]
> "Rshermr, post: 15101866, member: 37424"]A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
> They pay a lower percentage than I.  A number paid None.  The average for corporations was around 12%.
> 
> ...



Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%. And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here. Doesn't really make sense. Here is reality-

The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.
By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate at 18.7 percent (26.1 percent weighted by GDP). Africa has the highest simple average at 28.77 percent.
Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.9 percent.
Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past twelve years.
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015
[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
It was actually 12.6% but sometimes my memory leaves off a few tenths.

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*
Really, me boy.  You are not that ignorant.  Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.  Others for foreign laws requiring companies to have operations in their country.  What do you think, me boy.  Quick.  To the con talking points site.
I mean, only con trolls believe the main reason companies move parts or all of their companies out of the US is Taxes.  Oh, forgot again.  You are not a reasoning human.  You are a con troll.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense, they can have offshore production and still be incorporated in the US. Ask the big orange clown who has his clothes made overseas. Or maybe Tim Cook of Apple who doesn't bring the money earned overseas here because he doesn't want to get stung for 35%. 
*Tax Policy*
Under current law, U.S. companies owe the full 35 percent corporate tax rate -- the highest of any industrialized nation - - on income they earn around the world. They receive tax credits for payments to foreign governments, and have to pay the U.S. the difference only when they bring the money home.


That system encourages companies to shift profits to low-tax foreign countries and leave the money there. As a result, more than $2 trillion is being stockpiled overseas by U.S. companies.

U.S. President Barack Obama and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, are trying to find a way to impose a one-time tax on the stockpiled money to encourage cash repatriation, change the underlying system and plow the proceeds into highways.
Tim Cook’s $181 Billion Headache: Apple’s Cash Held Overseas

$2 Trillion and Counting

In the past year, U.S. companies seeking to avoid high corporate tax rates stockpiled an additional $154.5 billion overseas, bringing the grand total to more than $2 trillion.






SOURCES: Securities filings compiled by Bloomberg; U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Facts suck, don't they?


You love to use the term "me boi" when you seem to be demanding that others pay more of your cost.....very telling.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because, of course it is one of the ways to make sure the profits are taxed. 
But, lets get creative, other ways would be:
 a) Tarifs on fiscal paradises. 
 b) Taxes on financial transactions
 c)  A minimum income... taxation via inflation   .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*Because, of course it is one of the ways to make sure the profits are taxed.*

Profits made overseas are taxed overseas. We try to tax those profits again.

*a) Tarifs on fiscal paradises.*

Please explain further.
*
b) Taxes on financial transactions*

Stupid idea that would cost jobs and raise little.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 23, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot, post: 15101936, member: 29707"]
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
It was actually 12.6% but sometimes my memory leaves off a few tenths.

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*
Really, me boy.  You are not that ignorant.  Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.  Others for foreign laws requiring companies to have operations in their country.  What do you think, me boy.  Quick.  To the con talking points site.
I mean, only con trolls believe the main reason companies move parts or all of their companies out of the US is Taxes.  Oh, forgot again.  You are not a reasoning human.  You are a con troll.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense, they can have offshore production and still be incorporated in the US. Never suggested they could not.  
That system encourages companies to shift profits to low-tax foreign countries and leave the money there. As a result, more than $2 trillion is being stockpiled overseas by U.S. companies.  Yup.  Tax laws that favor corporations, and the wealthy.  

U.S. President Barack Obama and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, are trying to find a way to impose a one-time tax on the stockpiled money to encourage cash repatriation, change the underlying system and plow the proceeds into highways.  So long as it does not workout as badly as the last tax holiday.  
Tim Cook’s $181 Billion Headache: Apple’s Cash Held Overseas

$2 Trillion and Counting

In the past year, U.S. companies seeking to avoid high corporate tax rates stockpiled an additional $154.5 billion overseas, bringing the grand total to more than $2 trillion.





SOURCES: Securities filings compiled by Bloomberg; U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Facts suck, don't they?  Yes, indeed.



You love to use the term "me boi" when you seem to be demanding that others pay more of your cost.....very telling.

Pay more of my costs?  That is a stupid statement.  I never demand anyone do anything.  Ever.  So, no, you are way wrong.    Where you get that concept is beyond me.  But whatever.  And it is me boy, not me boi.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



1) Yes, but those taxes hould have been taxed in the US at a higher rate, not in ireland at a 10% ( just a figure I didn't really check the rate). 
2) Would actually be symbolic, it wouldn't rise much in the way of taxes, but raising the tariffs on some countries, at some point might make them think twice about their tax rate ( there is allways a way around it). 
3) Tax any outgoing transaction made with a foreign country. Yes, it would mean hell for financial markets, but it could be done. 

Though I really like more taxation through inflation... and Hayek would actually agree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*
Yes, but those taxes hould have been taxed in the US at a higher rate*

Yes, overseas earnings are taxed at a lower than the highest in the world US rate.

*Would actually be symbolic, it wouldn't rise much in the way of taxes, but raising the tariffs on some countries, at some point might make them think twice about their tax rate*

You want to punish Ireland, for example, for their low tax rate by hiking their tariffs?

*Tax any outgoing transaction made with a foreign country*

For what purpose? And define "outgoing transaction".
*
Yes, it would mean hell for financial markets, but it could be done.*

We can do lots of stupid things. Why do we want to?

*Though I really like more taxation through inflation*

How would that work?

*and Hayek would actually agree*

Link?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Though I really like more taxation through inflation*
> 
> How would that work?
> 
> ...



There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken

Friedrich Hayek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then of course that could lead to a significant reduction in the size of government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Though I really like more taxation through inflation*
> ...



Didn't see anything here about taxation through inflation.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Aug 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Please,provide your source/link which shows corporations pay an average of 12%.*

That's US taxes paid on worldwide income.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
It was actually 12.6% but sometimes my memory leaves off a few tenths.

*And while you are at it, ask yourself why would so many companies perform inversions out of the US if the corporate tax rates were so favorable here.*
Really, me boy.  You are not that ignorant.  Most leave for cheaper production costs, mostly for labor.  Others for foreign laws requiring companies to have operations in their country.  What do you think, me boy.  Quick.  To the con talking points site.
I mean, only con trolls believe the main reason companies move parts or all of their companies out of the US is Taxes.  Oh, forgot again.  You are not a reasoning human.  You are a con troll.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense, they can have offshore production and still be incorporated in the US. Never suggested they could not.  
That system encourages companies to shift profits to low-tax foreign countries and leave the money there. As a result, more than $2 trillion is being stockpiled overseas by U.S. companies.  Yup.  Tax laws that favor corporations, and the wealthy.  

U.S. President Barack Obama and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, are trying to find a way to impose a one-time tax on the stockpiled money to encourage cash repatriation, change the underlying system and plow the proceeds into highways.  So long as it does not workout as badly as the last tax holiday.  
Tim Cook’s $181 Billion Headache: Apple’s Cash Held Overseas

$2 Trillion and Counting

In the past year, U.S. companies seeking to avoid high corporate tax rates stockpiled an additional $154.5 billion overseas, bringing the grand total to more than $2 trillion.





SOURCES: Securities filings compiled by Bloomberg; U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Facts suck, don't they?  Yes, indeed.



You love to use the term "me boi" when you seem to be demanding that others pay more of your cost.....very telling.

Pay more of my costs?  That is a stupid statement.  I never demand anyone do anything.  Ever.  So, no, you are way wrong.    Where you get that concept is beyond me.  But whatever.  And it is me boy, not me boi.[/QUOTE]
Did did you read your own link? "

Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010."
The key phrase there is WORLD WIDE INCOME. In other words, not just income made in the US. If you don't earn the money here then you don't pay taxes on it until you bring it into the country. 

By the way, individuals can also benefit from working overseas by not paying taxes on a portion of what they earn.
Below are the maximum amounts for foreign income tax exclusion since the 2006 Tax Year:

*Tax Year* *Maximum Amount Foreign Income Exclusion*
2016 $101,300
2015 $100,800
2014 $99,200
2013 $97,600
2012 $95,100
2011 $92,900
2010 $91,500
2009 $91,400
2008 $87,600
2007 $85,700
2006 $82,400
*How Can I Claim a Foreign Income Tax Exclusion?*
In order to claim the foreign income tax exclusion, you must file or efile either Form 2555, Foreign Earned Income efile it , (if you are also claiming foreign housing cost amount exclusion) or Form 2555-EZ, Foreign Earned Income Exclusion efile it (if you are _only_ claiming the foreign income tax exclusion) Either Form 2555 or Form 2555-EZ should be filed along with your timely filed Form 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) efile it or Form 1040X (Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



True enough, he simply supported a universal minimum income and some way of social insurance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*Yes, but those taxes hould have been taxed in the US at a higher rate
*
Yes, overseas earnings are taxed at a lower than the highest in the world US rate.

*Would actually be symbolic, it wouldn't rise much in the way of taxes, but raising the tariffs on some countries, at some point might make them think twice about their tax rate*

You want to punish Ireland, for example, for their low tax rate by hiking their tariffs?

*Tax any outgoing transaction made with a foreign country*

For what purpose? And define "outgoing transaction".
*
Yes, it would mean hell for financial markets, but it could be done.*

We can do lots of stupid things. Why do we want to?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yes, but those taxes hould have been taxed in the US at a higher rate
> *
> Yes, overseas earnings are taxed at a lower than the highest in the world US rate.
> 
> ...


1 and 2) Yes. Though it would be purely symbolic. Not that Ireland or any fiscal paradise is a top trading partner ... or anything close to it. 

3) For any purpose that would be like setting a flat tariff to all imports and money transfers. 
For the same reason tariffs have existed most of the time:
a) Increase government revenues
b) Improving trade balance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Yes, but those taxes hould have been taxed in the US at a higher rate
> ...



*1 and 2) Yes. Though it would be purely symbolic.
*
What do you mean 1 Yes?
US taxes rates are higher. Highest corporate rates in the world.

And you want to punish any country that has a lower rate than us? That's everybody.
What do you hope to accomplish?

*For any purpose that would be like setting a flat tariff to all imports and money transfers.
*
You want to put a tax on imports and money transfers? Wow! That's like Trump level stupid.
Or Obama when he said he'd raise the capital gains rate, even if it brought in less revenue (it would), just to make it fair.
When you get morons in power trying to make things fair, they seriously fuck things up.
Just look at Carter and the new worst president, Obama. LOL!

*Increase government revenues*

And when it decreases government revenues and costs jobs?

*Improving trade balance
*
The trade balance always improves during a recession.
Why would you want to cause a recession just to improve the trade balance?
The way to improve the trade balance and actually make things better, would be to reduce barriers to US production. To cut taxes on US production.
Your ideas would make things worse and reduce the government revenue you feel you'd be increasing.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want to put a tax on imports and money transfers? Wow! That's like Trump level stupid.


Actually , most banks charge a fee for any transfer.... I guess that's stupid too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You want to put a tax on imports and money transfers? Wow! That's like Trump level stupid.
> ...



I pay bills all the time that transfer money out of my account.
Haven't paid a fee yet.
Yeah, that would be stupid too.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 24, 2016)

Liberals continue to illustrate that the prefer no wage jobs to low wage jobs. Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy...

Minimum Wage Hikes Blamed for Restaurant Closure


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 24, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Liberals continue to illustrate that the prefer no wage jobs to low wage jobs. Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy...
> 
> Minimum Wage Hikes Blamed for Restaurant Closure



So, your answer to a unbiased and impartial site is the Daily Signal, the well known bat shit crazy con source.  You must be simply trying to prove you are  a simple con troll, and a janitor.  Mission accomplished, me boy.  I should get an article from MoveOn.org.  But then, I won't, because I have respect for readers and do not want to affect my integrity.  Which, I understand, is no concern for you.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That doesn't stop them from charging fees. 

Wire Transfer - International Wire Transfers from Bank of America


----------



## P@triot (Aug 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals continue to illustrate that the prefer no wage jobs to low wage jobs. Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy...
> ...


How many times have you cut and pasted that tired and pitiful response? The fact is - you've used nothing but partisan sources. And the fact is - you have no idea what the Daily Signal even is. You just proclaim every source that makes you look stupid as "that doesn't count because X...".

The article isn't an op-ed you idiot. It's from a restaurant that is closing it's doors because of ignorant liberal policy. Why don't you just focus on learning proper English before moving on to economics chief? You have to learn how to walk before you learn how to run.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> Worked so well they had to be saved right....................



they had to be saved from massive libsoviet  govt regulation. Do you understand? 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

eagle1462010 said:


> ............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......


actually dear there was massive lib soviet regulation in place at time of crash that prevented free market regulation from working. Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> It is clear that VW is by far the largest player


actually dear VW has about the same capitalization as BMW and Mercedes. Do you ever get anything right?,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. .



well actually the great idea in America is to be free of govt so limiting their freedom to force them to pay is unamerican.

Plus, the very idea of a business tax is not to collect revenue but to pander to the pure and perfect ignorance of liberals who don't know that a business is a tax collector not a tax payer. A business passes the tax cost on like it passes any cost on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

Second, Germany has also a high tax rate . In 1995 it was even higher than that of the US  ( 55% ) and today it is slightly lower ( 29%).

1) who cares about 1995??????????????????
2) USA  corporate tax is 39% which is a whopping disadvantage reflecting a greater socialist bent than even Europe which explains our 1% GDP  Omama economy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 24, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Plus, the very idea of a business tax is not to collect revenue but to pander to the pure and perfect ignorance of liberals who don't know that *a business is a tax collector not a tax payer. A business passes the tax cost on* like it passes any cost on.


Hold on there a minute there Slick!
As  a pass-along all business taxes are de facto consumption taxes which the Right have renamed as the "Fair Tax."
So now the "Fair Tax" is suddenly not so "fair."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, the very idea of a business tax is not to collect revenue but to pander to the pure and perfect ignorance of liberals who don't know that *a business is a tax collector not a tax payer. A business passes the tax cost on* like it passes any cost on.
> ...



it has nothing to do with fairness. the corporate tax is based on the 100% pure ignorance of liberalism/ Do you understand?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well , congratulations  ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > It is clear that VW is by far the largest player
> ...



Any links Ed ? or as usual I have to take your word on it ?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
Do you understand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*
Were any of those international money transfers at all?*

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
*
Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?
*
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.*

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

*Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.
*
Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

*This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.*

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
> Do you understand?



dear, you forgot to explain why it is ignorant? Afraid to try??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).



If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.



work force participation and U6 unemployment are at all time highs thanks to various libturd welfare entitlement programs. We don't want to add still more to the moral hazard these programs pose. Also if you are concerned about household income why not cut taxes to all rather than give just to poor??? Think before you  post please.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




That is going to be hard to proove: he didn't ever consider it. Even when talking about inequality this is the most one gets from his books:

"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality "

He doesn't even consider the social and economical side effects of inequallity: less aggregate demand, higher crime rates, higher rate of informal economy. And that is my problem with Milton he doesn't even touch the subject. He talks at lengths on the morality of freedom and equality , but he doesn't ever mention what high inequallity does to an economy or a society as a whole.

I can say in his favour he did mention using a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).
> ...



He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. Not even marginally, he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit. That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle. It is quite evident that there must be some sort of balance between household income and corporate output.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*
Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.*

That's funny.
Relativity hadn't been discovered during Newton's lifetime.
During Friedman's life, everyone knew about economic cycles and inequality.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

This paper might disprove your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit.*

What do you feel the primary goal should be?

*That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle.*

People who look at the cycle shouldn't be concerned with profit?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 26, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
> ...


Actually I did already, but it obviously went over your ignorant head.

Because YOU said corporate taxes are ignorant because they are passed along to the consumer and the "Fair Tax" is a consumption tax therefore corporate taxes are a de facto "Fair Tax" and thus equally ignorant.
Get it?????


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

Edthecynic said:
Because YOU said corporate taxes are ignorant because they are passed along to the consumer and the "Fair Tax" is a consumption tax therefore corporate taxes are a de facto "Fair Tax" and thus equally ignorant.
Get it?????
Funny, when you think about it.  EdBal and Get it are a form of Oxymoron.  Ed is brain dead, has been for life.  He is a Conservative Troll. He understands nothing, but he has been told what to believe.  Has his beliefs in a list, and he believes them brainlessly.  Because he has no rational brain.  Ed never makes sense, except to himself and other brainless trolls.  Also conservatives trolls like him.
.
Now, Ed has the job of shutting down threads that are not going well for the cons.  People see his name, and it is a lot like you are walking through a pasture and see a big pile of cow shit.  See the similarity? EdBal and Cow Shit?  So, people get away from the cow shit, just as they get away from Eds posts.  They are equally nasty meaningless things that make people feel crappy .  And the result is, the thread dies.  Which apparently makes little edBal feel great. 
I find Ed kind of like the target in target practice.  You can shoot him full of holes, but it really makes no difference.  He has no class, and no integrity.  Like a con troll, which he is.  He never admits he lost his argument, which he always does if anyone responds to his brainless posts.  He simply keeps on with the same drivel, day after day, week after week, year after year.  All to no rational end.
Then there are the same endless lines of personal attacks.  Poor ed.  I think it is clinical.  Best guess is he is a congenital idiot.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Tricky. Indeed a corporation needs to profit in order to survive. But that doesn't make it its primary goal. Why else would business bother with making a charter with vision goals and objectives in the first place?
Profit is a requisite not a goal, just as eating is a requirement to stay alive, that doesn't make it your goal in life ( though it might be, it simply isn't the norm).

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of the sidefects of the cycle:
  - If a country has a trade surplus someone will have a deficit
  - If corporations have increasing surplus, their internal markets will shrink
  - If labour is continually rising corporations will not be able to sustain themselves. 
  - If the financial sector gets too much surplus, there will be a capital glut
... and so on. 

Other economists: Minsky, Stiglitz, Keen are very aware of this cycle. But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*But that doesn't make it its primary goal.*

What should the primary goal of a corporation be, if not profit?

*Profit is a requisite not a goal*

The thing we need most of all, the thing that allows us to survive....is not our goal. Hmmmmm.

*Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of*

Do you think (can you prove) that Friedman was unaware of those?

*But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy
*
Well, I'm just glad that you admitted your original claim was incorrect.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



 Not quite. The article talks about the cycles of businesses and money stock. They are related topics but not the same. 

I am refering to this:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



Friedman didn't know about the things in that simplistic image?
Why do you feel that?
Do you have any proof?
Maybe you read some of his work that showed he didn't know about imports, exports, consumption, income, investments or government borrowing?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of*
> 
> Do you think (can you prove) that Friedman was unaware of those?
> 
> ...



Did I?
Ignore: to give no attention to something or someone.
ignore Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Friedman didn't know about the things in that simplistic image?


I did not say he didn't know them , I said he ignored them: He knew, but he considered irrelevant. He was actually blatant about model simplifications :
Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of*
> ...



http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

55 pages at the link and he didn't mention those things in your image?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 26, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. .



Would the 100% perfect idiot liberal bet $10,000 on that???

would the liberal like to see another 50,000 links?????????

PDF]
*Money and Business Cycles - National Bureau of Economic Research*
www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf
‎
Chapter Author: Milton *Friedman*, Anna J. Schwartz. Chapter URL: ... the *business cycle*was a monetary phenomenon, “a dance of the dollar,” as Irving Fisher .


*Milton Friedman: "I Think the Austrian Business-Cycle Theory Has ...*
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/.../milton_*friedman*.html
‎
Jan 20, 2006 *...* *FRIEDMAN* That is a very general statement that has very little content. I think the Austrian *business*-*cycle* theory has done the world a great ..


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 26, 2016)

*The Capitalism Expo*

I put in $15 in Ford in 2009 when it was valued at $1/share, but then it rose to $15/share in value, and had I put in $1 million, I would have made $14 million in stock market profits, and all of this 'luck' was brought on by a statistical analysis of the looming boom in the auto market.

What American companies compete graphically in the global market, given that consumerism-iconography companies in USA create images of culture exaggeration for 'materialism marketing'?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 26, 2016)

Abishai100 said:


> *The Capitalism Expo*
> 
> I put in $15 in Ford in 2009 when it was valued at $1/share, but then it rose to $15/share in value, and had I put in $1 million, I would have made $14 million in stock market profits, and all of this 'luck' was brought on by a statistical analysis of the looming boom in the auto market.
> 
> ...



do you have any idea what your point is????????


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 26, 2016)

*FALSE-POSITIVE*

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian?  What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 26, 2016)

Abishai100 said:


> *FALSE-POSITIVE*
> 
> Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian?  What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?
> 
> ...



they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Abishai100 said:
> 
> 
> > *FALSE-POSITIVE*
> ...





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Abishai100 said:
> 
> 
> > *FALSE-POSITIVE*
> ...



Poor ed, has ho idea of what happens in Scandinavia.  He thinks it is in Minnesota. , but keeps on posting con talking points like a good con.  Ignorant and believing what he is told.  Because the poor stupid bastard knows only what he is told to believe.Poor dipshit.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 27, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. .
> ...


Ed, 
   As I previously commented with Toddster, the business cycle is related to the circular flow in economics, but they are not the same. The business cycle is a byproduct of the circular flow:

Business Cycle : 
The business cycle is the fluctuation in economic activity that an economy experiences over a period of time. 

Circular Flow:
The circular flow of income is a neoclassical economic model depicting how money flows through the economy.
In the most simple version, the economy is modeled as consisting only of households and firms. 

Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow. He also failed to see that income difference follow an exponential difference and not a gausian distribution which normally occurs in nature. 
On the other hand he was as afraid of big corporations as of big government and considred inequallity could be fought with a negative income tax ( which I am not sure would have worked, but hey , at least he was willing to address the problem). Finally Friedman developed the income withholding tax, something he regreted later. 

Business Cycle Definition | Investopedia
Circular Flow Of Income Definition | Investopedia


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Ed,
> As I previously commented with Toddster, the business cycle is related to the circular flow in economics,



lying scummy liberal said Friedman did  not consider "cyclical" nature of economy. Now that he has been proven wrong he pretends he said circular, not cyclical nature of economy. I'm embarrassed for the liberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow.



This is so totally 100% stupid as to be perfectly 100% liberal. I saw him just before he died. He was asked what he wanted to be know for. He said his research on the consumption function about which he wrote a book called the Consumption Function!!!
Thanking you for showing us the IQ of liberalism!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Abishai100 said:
> ...


vicious violent liberal who would not tell his mother what he is like.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 28, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow.
> ...



He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Poor ed, has ho idea of what happens in Scandinavia.  He thinks it is in Minnesota. , but keeps on posting con talking points like a good con.  Ignorant and believing what he is told.  Because the poor stupid bastard knows only what he is told to believe.Poor dipshit.


Instead of using all of your time in a pitiful attempt to convince people of why you deserve to mooch off of society - why don't you take some classes on the English language? You continue to struggle.

Let's see - you used the word "poor" three times (can you say "over use"?). You failed to capitalize "Ed" (a proper name), put a period after "Minnesota" but then followed that up with a space, a comma, and then another space, and finished by failing to put a space after the period before your final two word "sentence".

Your grammar is almost as atrocious as your knowledge of economics. Why do you refuse to tell us what country you are from? It would at least excuse - in part anyway - your incoherent posts, "me boy".


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.


There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's *very* simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend _that_.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.
> ...



No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow? 
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:






It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .


----------



## regent (Aug 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.
> ...


Sounds like an endorsement of Keynes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.*

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.
*
Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?*

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

*It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.*

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


As I said before , Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models. So his models have to be taken with caution: they work only under certain asumptions. In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels. And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's. 

"Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
 Milton Friedman"
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models.*

All models involve simplifications. So what?
*
In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels.*

If you say so. So what?

*And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.*

Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2016)

regent said:


> Sounds like an endorsement of Keynes.


Sure...if Keynes meant the *exact opposite* of what it actually does.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
> And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.
> 
> It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .


First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine _why_. Why is there so much debt? Because the government _steals_ 55% - 60% of what a person _earns_.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So what? Well , it is only a model , and you can't expect it to work under such circumstances. In this case the high level of debt and the deleveraging.

Which taxes : corporate income tax and personal income tax.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
> ...



There you go patriot. Scroll down to the 70's. You'll see tax brackets reaching up to 70%. 
And household debt was much smaller at that time. 

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.
*
Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?
*
Which taxes : corporate income tax and personal income tax.*

Wow. You're making all these claims about what Friedman didn't know, or what he did wrong, and you can't even read your own chart.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


That's because available credit was exponentially smaller at the time, _genius_.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


That's because available credit was exponentially smaller at the time, _genius_. And that's because people had no money in their pocket with 70% tax rates. 

You continue to say inanely stupid things. Is there any other misinformation you would like me to debunk for you?

In 1970, *16% of households* held at least one bank credit card...

Credit cards Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Credit cards


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
> ...


Another profound post by the con troll janitor.  Jesus, that was a dumb post.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


You away cry "dumb" when you can't think of a liberal argument to dispute the facts.


----------



## rdean (Aug 30, 2016)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101


The free market is what sends jobs to China.  Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2016)

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...


Uh...no it *doesn't*, _stupid_. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable *fact* that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 31, 2016)

P@triot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



First, those figures (70% tax rate) applied only for the top 20%.

If you look at the chart in the link you'll see the bottom 4 quintiles have mostly the same income they had in the 70's, and mostly the same tax rates. Sure enough the top 20% have seen their taxes decreased and their income grow. But that is not the sector which is holding the debt: they don't need to go into debt. 

Household Income Analysis -not adjusted for inflation 

Household Income Analysis - adjusted for inflation


----------



## Rshermr (Aug 31, 2016)

P@triot said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You made no argument.  And you just created a sentence that makes no sense.  You provided no facts.  At least none that make any sense based on your broken sentence.   Next.


----------



## rdean (Aug 31, 2016)

P@triot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month.  People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.  

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit.  There is simply no excuse for it.  You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

rdean said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



_How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO. _

_ Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do._

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services. 
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies. 
  ... All apparently legit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price. 
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime. 
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...


*
It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ..*

Absolutely. You think they'll just take your word for it? LOL!
*
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.*

If it's a related party transaction, they'll charge you taxes based on the proper price, plus a penalty.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am not very optimistic about it: I've seen it done in the pharma industry with no penalty whatsoever for the company. It is really easy :
  Company A produces base component X. There is a generic component X1 which has half the price. 
  Company A adds substance Y to component X, so it is not exactly equal to X1 ( for example for delayed absortion, and this might not be true,  but it makes it a different substance). 
  Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1. 
Clever isn't it ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1. 
Clever isn't it ?*

Yes, losing money.....very clever.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Aug 31, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Company B looses money, but pay at a rate of 35% of income taxes
Company A earns money , but pays a rate of 10% or less.
Company A owns company B.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



They pay special attention to related party transactions.

Understanding the Implications of Related Party Transactions and Transfer Pricing - Inbound Logistics


----------



## CultureCitizen (Sep 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nice to know the theory Toddster, in practice I have seen it done. 
Not a friend of a friend, I saw it when I made the cost of sales report for the products. 
The effect was subtle of course, the price changed from one year to the other by a small margin ( between 5% and 25%), but the tactic to offshore the profits was there. 

Indeed the job was done jointly with experts, people who knew exactly how to disguise the fact. 

And that is only one way of doing it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



And if our corporate tax rate wasn't idiotically the highest in the world, the incentive to cheat wouldn't be so high.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Sep 1, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ok , it is high and as someone paying taxes I admit 25% seems fair enoug IF everyone pays its fair share. But even in that case I doubt those practices disappear. Small businesses simply can't do all the trickery that large corporations have at their disposal. When 0% is the alternative to 25%it is a no brainner for large corporations.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 2, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> Ok , it is high and as someone paying taxes I admit 25% seems fair enoug IF everyone pays its fair share. But even in that case I doubt those practices disappear. Small businesses simply can't do all the trickery that large corporations have at their disposal. When 0% is the alternative to 25%it is a no brainner for large corporations.



Yes. If big corporations ever actually paid this imaginary '33% tax rate', the rates could be lowered substantially all across the board for small and large companies., and the deficit would be a fraction of what it is now to boot. Most of these big companies actually have negative tax rates, and shareholders get paid larger dividends courtesy of taxpayers, but ideologues on the right don't like to mention that for some reason when posting disinformation about our alleged 'highest tax rate in the world 'nonsense. Many corporations, like energy companies and pipelines for example, collect federal taxes from customers, but never have to pay the money collected to the government, they get to pocket it, for instance.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Many companies keep two sets of books, one for shareholders, another for the government. They will claim paying taxes on one, but not on the other set, so you have no idea whether they actually paid a dime in taxes on any of those transactions, and you also leave out all the deductions, real and imaginary, that knock the real tax rate down substantially, even to below zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Picaro said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Ok , it is high and as someone paying taxes I admit 25% seems fair enoug IF everyone pays its fair share. But even in that case I doubt those practices disappear. Small businesses simply can't do all the trickery that large corporations have at their disposal. When 0% is the alternative to 25%it is a no brainner for large corporations.
> ...



*Most of these big companies actually have negative tax rates*

Can you prove this claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CultureCitizen said:
> ...



*They will claim paying taxes on one, but not on the other set,*

Why do you think they can get away with these supposed lies?

*so you have no idea whether they actually paid a dime in taxes on any of those transactions,*

The IRS has no idea?

*and you also leave out all the deductions, real and imaginary, that knock the real tax rate down substantially,*

What's an "imaginary deduction"?
Why do you feel I'm ignoring deductions?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 4, 2016)

CultureCitizen said:


> It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. .


dear, I guess he figured that after 35% of the banks disappeared and the money supply shrunk by 38% that it had something to do with the collapse of the economy. 100% stupid and liberal as always. You fool no one by reading a erudite article and then talking from it when you have not had Econ 101 and cant understand what you read. Grow up please.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 15, 2016)

For those few progressives left that haven't figured out why Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth.

The flat-earth progressives who deny reality just can't bring themselves to accept what the rest of the world is accepting (including socialist nations). While consumers look for the best deals from businesses, businesses look for the best deals from governments. They aren't going to pay more for labor, taxes, and regulations than they have to anymore than you would pay more for a home, an automobile, and a tv than you have to. You shop around and you get the best deal. That's what businesses do as well. And that is why so many have taken their manufacturing operations, and the subsequent jobs, overseas. Idiotic progressive policies have driven them there. We need smart, sound, conservative economic policy to bring them back and keep them here.

Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 16, 2016)

P@triot said:


> For those few progressives left that haven't figured out why Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth.
> 
> The flat-earth progressives who deny reality just can't bring themselves to accept what the rest of the world is accepting (including socialist nations). While consumers look for the best deals from businesses, businesses look for the best deals from governments. They aren't going to pay more for labor, taxes, and regulations than they have to anymore than you would pay more for a home, an automobile, and a tv than you have to. You shop around and you get the best deal. That's what businesses do as well. And that is why so many have taken their manufacturing operations, and the subsequent jobs, overseas. Idiotic progressive policies have driven them there. We need smart, sound, conservative economic policy to bring them back and keep them here.
> 
> Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete



and, a business has no choice but to look for the best country in which to operate. If it doesn't a competitor will and they will be driven out of business.

moreover, the entire process is driven by customers who, oddly, always want the lowest price. Customers are greedy, business owners are not.

In fact, a business will often make less money since the competition is off shore too and thus prices then have to be lower to reflect the lower production costs.

Seems simple but does a liberal have the IQ to understand it? Not even close.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 16, 2016)

P@triot said:


> For those few progressives left that haven't figured out why Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth.
> 
> The flat-earth progressives who deny reality just can't bring themselves to accept what the rest of the world is accepting (including socialist nations). While consumers look for the best deals from businesses, businesses look for the best deals from governments. They aren't going to pay more for labor, taxes, and regulations than they have to anymore than you would pay more for a home, an automobile, and a tv than you have to. You shop around and you get the best deal. That's what businesses do as well. And that is why so many have taken their manufacturing operations, and the subsequent jobs, overseas. Idiotic progressive policies have driven them there. We need smart, sound, conservative economic policy to bring them back and keep them here.
> 
> Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete



and, a business has no choice but to look for the best country in which to operate. If it doesn't a competitor will and they will be driven out of business.

moreover, the entire process is driven by customers who, oddly, always want the lowest price. Customers are greedy, business owners are not.

In fact, a business will often make less money since the competition is off shore too and thus prices and profits have to be lower to reflect the lower production costs.

Seems simple but does a liberal have the IQ to understand it? Not even close.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 19, 2016)

Another perfect example. Not only did the progressive state income tax not balance the budget despite an astounding $126 billion in revenue - but it has made spending explode as the progressives now believe the have a blank check at their disposal...

In 1991, Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker decried the state’s “orgies of spending,” and said his income tax proposal—which would include fiscal discipline—would balance the books.

Connecticut recently marked the 25th anniversary of the income tax, which has resulted in little to no spending restraint. 

State spending grew *71%* *faster than inflation* from 1991 to 2014 and 

Most of that went toward debt services payments and state employee benefits—which combined *grew 174% over the rate of inflation*, according to a report by the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, a Connecticut think tank.

“But many states lean on the revenue from an income tax will can discourage labor, drive down wages, *and drive business to relocate*.”
What Happened After Blue State Introduced an Income Tax


----------



## P@triot (Sep 19, 2016)

What conservatives have known and said for _decades_. This is so simple - and progressives know it to. But they refuse to _admit_ it.

According to Paul Trussell, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, the number of people utilizing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in June 2016 was *down 4.7%* from the same month a year before, and the number of households using SNAP was *down 5.2%* year-over-year.

"The month of *June represents the biggest YOY decline* in persons and households participating in SNAP in the program's history," Trussell wrote in a note to clients on Thursday.

*The primary driver, according to Trussell, is the reinstitution of work rules by states*. During the financial crisis, the federal government allowed states to waive requirements regarding employment for SNAP recipients as the unemployment rate soared.
The number of people on food stamps is plummeting at the fastest rate ever after the government made a key change


----------



## P@triot (Sep 21, 2016)

Progressive policies continue to drive jobs out of the country. Left-wing ideology can't bring itself to accept that businesses shop for the best deal just like consumers shop for the best deal. China, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. continue to offer a much better deal in terms of tax rates, labor laws, regulations, etc.

Ford shifting all U.S. small-car production to Mexico


----------



## P@triot (Sep 21, 2016)

Left-wing progressive policy doing what it _always_ does - collapsing economies and dragging everyone down into poverty and misery...

Venezuela’s Govt -Owned Oil Industry Collapsing. Socialist State Now Buying American Oil.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 21, 2016)

Say this for progressives - their policies are extremely consistent. You always know _exactly_ what you'll get. Higher unemployment. More poverty. More famine. More misery. More debt. Economic collapse.

Cooper, of Project 21, *said that African-Americans did fare better during the Ronald Reagan years*, and even during the 1990s with Bill Clinton, along with every other demographic, before Obamacare, the stimulus spending, and other regulation crowded out the private sector.

“There was an increase in black Americans owning homes, in high school graduations, and attending college,” Cooper said. “Today, it’s harder for entrepreneurs. If not for the digital economy, all opportunities might be eliminated. *Barriers for entry into the economy are artificially higher because of the federal government*.”

How Minorities Have Fared in Obama Economy


----------



## P@triot (Sep 22, 2016)

Can only _imagine_ what all of the illegal immigrants that Dumbocrats encourage and facilitate are costing us...

Every Immigrant Without High School Degree Costs US $640,000


----------



## P@triot (Sep 25, 2016)

South America is figuring out what progressives in America already know but are too immature to accept: left-wing policies end in poverty and misery.

With the Senate impeachment vote to remove from office former President Dilma Rousseff, Brazilians joined a lengthening line of Latin Americans who have soured on the populist, corrupting, and impoverishing policies of “21st Century Socialism.”

Faced with its disastrous consequences, people in some neighboring countries had already turned the page and moved on. Argentina wised up late last year and installed center-right President Mauricio Macri after more than a decade of misrule by the Peronist Kirchner family.

Earlier this year, Peruvians voted for a 78-year-old center-right economist to get them back on track.

And in Caracas, Venezuela, tens of thousands took to the streets demanding the removal of the brutally fascistic regime put in power by one of 21st Century Socialism’s founding fathers, the late Hugo Chávez.
'Socialism of the 21st Century' Collapses in Brazil


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 28, 2016)

P@triot said:


> South America is figuring out what progressives in America already know but are too immature to accept: left-wing policies end in poverty and misery.




I like your optimism but if the world didn't figure it out after Stalin, Mao, East Germany Cuba, FDR, and 132 others I doubt it will ever be figured out.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 28, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > South America is figuring out what progressives in America already know but are too immature to accept: left-wing policies end in poverty and misery.
> ...


Good point...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 29, 2016)




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Sep 29, 2016)

P@triot said:


> View attachment 91492



Democrats ran Detroit the way they run the Post Office, health care, the economy , and the way they have run black peoples' lives. Failure everywhere but since liberals lack the IQ to see any other solution than more govt thats what we'll get!


----------



## regent (Sep 29, 2016)

Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used. By the same token the American people have a responsibility to their government and its people.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2016)

regent said:


> Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used..



govt has no money without stealing it at gunpoint so it can only help those who receive the  stolen money if you call that help? Do you call that help?


----------



## regent (Oct 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used..
> ...


Government has access to money besides taxes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2016)

regent said:


> Government has access to money besides taxes.



and how much would they collect if not with a gun pointed at your head? Notice all liberals want is more violence. Every liberal program requires more violence.
And notice, we have had nothing but more liberal programs for the last 60 years and who thinks we are on the right track?


----------



## regent (Oct 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Government has access to money besides taxes.
> ...


Apparently the American people think we are on the right track if we keep getting  liberal programs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 5, 2016)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



actually 72% of Americans think we are on the wrong track. The highest % ever.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 13, 2018)

The left simply has no concept of basic economics or basic business. A person who generates tremendous wealth for their organization can demand tremendous compensation. How sad that such a basic concept is beyond the left.

The $100 Million Man: Raiders to Pay John Gruden $10 Million for 10 Years. Crazy? Maybe Not


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 13, 2018)

P@triot said:


> The left simply has no concept of basic economics or basic business. A person who generates tremendous wealth for their organization can demand tremendous compensation. How sad that such a basic concept is beyond the left.
> 
> The $100 Million Man: Raiders to Pay John Gruden $10 Million for 10 Years. Crazy? Maybe Not


 yep its simply an accurate price set by the market place to find the best managers for the most difficult jobs in the world. Without this pricing mechanism our standard of living would fall quickly.


----------



## Markle (Jan 14, 2018)

regent said:


> Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used. By the same token the American people have a responsibility to their government and its people.



That's why fragile former President Barack Hussein Obama said our Constitution was wrong.  Our Constitution is written so that it restricts what government can do to us.  Like you, he believes it should enumerate everything the government should provide and do for us.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 15, 2018)

regent said:


> Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used. By the same token the American people have a responsibility to their government and its people.


Govt helped the people by creating dozens of Chi-Raq’s all across America? Let’s pray govt stops trying to help ! Govt is the source of evil in human history thats why our Founders gave us freedom and made liberalism illegal.


----------



## P@triot (Jan 15, 2018)

This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...


----------



## P@triot (Jan 15, 2018)

regent said:


> Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. *It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used*. By the same token the American people have a responsibility to their government and its people.


Well nothing would “help the American people” more than the extermination of all progressives (that’s a fact). So by your own view, the government should be used in that capacity.

Yes folks...the left really is _that_ stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 16, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Friedman is wrong saying government has no responsibility to the people. *It is our government and if it can be used to help the American people it should be so used*. By the same token the American people have a responsibility to their government and its people.
> ...


Yes sadly very stupid indeed. A libcommie will have no idea that when profits go way up like they will after the Trump tax cuts a company has to use those profits to lower prices and increase wages or a competitor will and drive them out of business.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2018)

Economic freedom always ends in prosperity, while *failed* left-wing socialism always ends in poverty...


> Economies rated “free” or “mostly free” in the 2018 index enjoy incomes that are more than twice the average levels in all other countries, and more than five times higher than the incomes of “repressed” economies.


Imagine the permanent prosperity we could enjoy if not for the greedy and lazy left.

5 Takeaways From the 2018 Index of Economic Freedom


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 25, 2018)

The Heritage Foundation. A joke.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Economic freedom always ends in prosperity, while *failed* left-wing socialism always ends in poverty...
> 
> 
> > Economies rated “free” or “mostly free” in the 2018 index enjoy incomes that are more than twice the average levels in all other countries, and more than five times higher than the incomes of “repressed” economies.
> ...


dailysignal?  Patriot?? really???


----------



## Jomama (Feb 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Economic freedom always ends in a bubble



FIFY

Us capitalists need (stable/predictable,fair) regulations or we will over eat.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 25, 2018)

According to Forbes Magazine, the US is No. 20, and sliding down the list. 

Every one of the countries in the Top 10 is a left wing social democracy.  Countries with single payer health care, good education systems and a strong social safety net. 

Best Countries for Business


----------



## P@triot (Feb 25, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Every one of the countries in the Top 10 is a left wing social democracy.


No snowflake...they aren’t. All of them outrank the U.S. in the economic freedom index thanks to Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats.


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 25, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Economic freedom always ends in prosperity, while *failed* left-wing socialism always ends in poverty...
> 
> 
> > Economies rated “free” or “mostly free” in the 2018 index enjoy incomes that are more than twice the average levels in all other countries, and more than five times higher than the incomes of “repressed” economies.
> ...



Check out Europe and England.  Horror story has nothing on how those socialist cesspools progress economically.


----------



## Markle (Feb 27, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> The Heritage Foundation. A joke.



Then it should be easy for you to disprove the information about which you are whining.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 27, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> According to Forbes Magazine, the US is No. 20, and sliding down the list.
> 
> Every one of the countries in the Top 10 is a left wing social democracy.  Countries with single payer health care, good education systems and a strong social safety net.
> 
> Best Countries for Business



Easy to do when your population is, like, 10, and you have everybody else paying for your defense budget, so you don't have to worry about spending on infrastructure. Not being several thousand miles wide is also a great money saver and logistical bennie. Apples and oranges. Their parasite population is just now catching up to U.S. levels as well; not bordering nasty atavistic narcos states that use your country as a dumping ground for its poor is another big bonus and geographical advantage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 27, 2018)

Picaro is mixing apples and oranges again.  The US can do the same thing by trimming 10% of the DOD and still protect the free world.  He is nativistic, uber nationalistic, anti democracy, pro white ethno state, and so forth: the antithesis of a true American.


----------



## P@triot (Feb 28, 2018)

This is obvious to anyone who understands basic economics.


> As a small business owner, I know firsthand that when lawmakers create legislation that forces employers to increase employees' hourly pay via mandate, it ultimately leads to reduced hours, business closures, and job losses.


Unfortunately - that one requirement immediately disqualifies progressives. This “Fight for $15” stupidity is the same type of stupidity that collapsed Venezuela and sent the entire nation spiraling into extreme poverty.

I’m a Small Business Owner. Raising the Minimum Wage Would Hurt My Employees.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 1, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Picaro is mixing apples and oranges again.  The US can do the same thing by trimming 10% of the DOD and still protect the free world.  He is nativistic, uber nationalistic, anti democracy, pro white ethno state, and so forth: the antithesis of a true American.



Jake hates geography, and can't find anything about a 'pro white ethno state' in any of my posts, so we know he's just trying to parrot rubbish the Hive thinks is a real response. Jake wouldn't be caught dead hangin with anybody in Da Hood, he pees himself if he finds himself alone in a room with anybody who doesn't look like Heidi Klum, so he overcompensated for his knee jerk racism by babbling inane crap on the innernetz, like the other Burb Brats constantly do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 1, 2018)

Picaro can deny his racialistic tendencies all he wants, and who cares?  The _ad homs_ by him simply witness I have nailed to the wall.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 3, 2018)

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> The US can do the same thing by trimming 10% of the DOD and still protect the free world.


We can’t even properly protect the free world now because of the damage the Dumbocrats have done to our nation. We need at least a 10% increase to our defense budget.

However, what we can do, is cut 100% of the unconstitutional “welfare” bullshit. That would save us over $1 trillion per year. We could fund everything and still pay off the national debt in less than 25 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

Nonsense, brother P@triot.  We can easily defend the free world with 75% of the current DOD budget.  But if we throw away the safety net then we are the immoral nation of the world.


----------



## regent (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The US can do the same thing by trimming 10% of the DOD and still protect the free world.
> ...


Ah, the Republicans love to talk about paying off the national debt, and yet, they never have. At present Republicans have all three branches of government, and they still blame the only party that has paid off the debt, for their failure.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

^^^ kwc57???


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Every one of the countries in the Top 10 is a left wing social democracy.
> ...



More ignorant attacks based on your lack of brain activity, and nothing else.  Just your opinion, and  you know how much I value your opinion.  Dipshit.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I agree 100% with that. The Republican Party has completely *failed* the American people when it comes to a fiscally conservative budget.

But there is one thing I will say in their defense. It is the idiot Dumbocrats who bury the Republicans (and this nation) with the unconstitutional programs (welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, Obamacare) that have fiscally devasted this nation and sent us off of the cliff.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


OMG...you actually replied to a post properly! Hallelujah! 

That is a _significant_ step for the dumbest poster on USMB!


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This is obvious to anyone who understands basic economics.
> 
> 
> > As a small business owner, I know firsthand that when lawmakers create legislation that forces employers to increase employees' hourly pay via mandate, it ultimately leads to reduced hours, business closures, and job losses.
> ...



The minimum wage has been raised many time, me boy.  And EVERY SINGLE TIME, cons like yourself has told of impending danger.  But, EVERY SINGLE TIME, employment has improved over a pretty short time.  So, the stupidity is yours.  Trying to relate raising the minimum wage to the issues in Venezuela is, on the other hand, a con talking point.  Really, you may want to try impartial sources. 

Your link is more proof of who you are, me boy.  The Daily Signal is a right wing nut case source used by con trolls, but unimportant to those who prefer a little truth. 

*The Daily Signal - Wikipedia*
The Daily Signal - Wikipedia
*The Daily Signal is an American political journalism news website founded in June 2014. The publication focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary *from a conservative perspective. It is published by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.

Try impartial and well respected sources and someone may pay attention.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



No they didn’t. Republicans under George W. Bush sent the US economy off the cliff. Obama saved not just the USA but the world economy as well.

The social programs you decry - welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, are what kept your economy afloat and prevented the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. That’s why it’s referred to as a “social safety net”, and it worked.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Got proof, me boy?  Your right wing rantings are just boring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



* Obama saved not just the USA but the world economy as well.
*
He certainly was magic!!!

What did he do to save the US (and world) economy?


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



That seem st be all you have, me boy.  Ignorant personal attacks.  And no economic content at all.   Generally, you at least post nonsensical economic ideas.  Are you just giving up?  Have you finally gotten to the point that you are admitting that you are a congenital idiot?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> The social programs you decry - welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, are what kept your economy afloat and prevented the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. That’s why it’s referred to as a “social safety net”, and it worked.


And that is why progressives are known as the people of Great IGNORANCE. Even extremely left-wing institutions like UCLA were forced to admit that those social programs you adore drastically extend a recession into a full-blown depression.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years ... - UCLA Newsroom

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression | UCLA


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Have you finally gotten to the point that you are admitting that you are a congenital idiot?


At least I can make a post on a website without making it appear that everyone else's words were also mine.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> The social programs you decry - welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, are what kept your economy afloat and prevented the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. That’s why it’s referred to as a “social safety net”, and it worked.


And that is why progressives are known as the people of Great IGNORANCE. Even FRD's own Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr. (who was the architect of the idiotic, failed left-wing policies), admitted that they *failed* _horribly_.

'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You should really check out the reports by the CBO, me boy.  Because as a con troll, you think nothing he did helped.  But, the CBO predicted that his actions likely kept us from a depression that was likely to result from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  
Or you could consider the annual analysis by FactCheck.org, done yearly. Consider this one, completed at the end of his term in office:

Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org

The analysis was for the term of Obama's time in office.  It included:
1.  Employment increased by 11,64  million.  The ue rate decreased from about from about 10% to 4.8%.  And job openings increased by 103%.
2.  Corporate Profits increased by 103%, and the S & P index increased by 166%.
3.  Wind and Solar Power production went up 369%, Carbon Dioxide emissions decreased by 11%, and crude oil production increased by 77%.

So, the only thing that affected jobs and the economy in a good way for many years was the ARRA, or Obama Stimulus.  Republicans did nothing, except meet on the eve of Obama taking office and agree to stop anything that Obama wanted to do, since they owned congress.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Post #1343 and post #1345 flawlessly illustrate the difference between the right and the left.

While the left resorts to pure emotion (I love Barack Insane Obama for absolutely no reason - therefore he "saved the world"), the right examines history (ie Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s own words), reads new studies/data (such as that released by UCLA) and then draws a clear conclusion based on intellect.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> The analysis was for the term of Obama's time in office.  It included:
> 1.  Employment increased by 11,64  million.  The ue rate decreased from about from about 10% to 4.8%.  And job openings increased by 103%.


That alone is an egregious *lie*. For starters, it was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbcorats who took unemployment to 10% in the first place (it was 7% when he was sworn in). So you can credit him with "creating" the jobs that he LOST in the first place!!!

Second, it remained at 10% until after the 2010 mid-terms when he took (and I quote him here) "a shellacking". Once the Republicans were in control of the House and every state, county, and city in the U.S., we started to see the recovery thanks to sound, proven, conservative policy.

You've been owned with facts. Run along now junior. Back to the shit-hole nation that you logged in from.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The social programs you decry - welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, are what kept your economy afloat and prevented the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. That’s why it’s referred to as a “social safety net”, and it worked.
> ...



Wow.  You really like the nut case crazy con web site, the Daily Signal.  Got an impartial site, me boy. Of course you don't.  

The UE rate under republicans, from 1929 to january of 1933, watched the unemployment rate go from 2.5% to over 25%. In 4 years!!!!!!  Under FDR, the ue rate went from 25% when he took office to under 4%.  So, what was it you were saying about a bad policy under FDR?  Did you think that the UE rate going up by 22% under republicans was a good thing????  And the UE rate decreasing by 21% was a bad thing?  
See why I call you a dipshit?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn simply owns P@triot.  The George W. Bush Congress caused the Great Recession, which Patriot would go to jail for if criminal libel could be punished as such.  Rshermn is absolutely correct on job growth, UE decresase, and job openings.  Trump has been riding that ever since.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



*you think nothing he did helped.
*
Sure, running massive counter-cyclical deficits can help reduce unemployment and increase GDP.
You have to look at cost-benefit.
His cost, $9.3 trillion in added debt, was pretty large, his benefit, the weakest recovery since WW2, kinda sucked.
*
 the CBO predicted that his actions likely kept us from a depression 
*
Predicted? LOL!

*Employment increased by 11,64  million. *

Wow! His added debt was about $800,000 per job. 

* crude oil production increased by 77%.*​
It's true, a lot of economic growth happened despite Obama's actions.
​*So, the only thing that affected jobs and the economy in a good way for many years was the ARRA, or Obama Stimulus. *​
The vast majority of which was spent after the recession already ended in June 2009.
​* Republicans did nothing, except meet on the eve of Obama taking office and agree to stop anything that Obama wanted to do, since they owned congress.*​
Ummm.....Obama had massive majorities in the House and Senate when he took office.​


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Wow.  You really like the nut case crazy con web site, the Daily Signal.  Got an impartial site, me boy. Of course you don't.


When a progressive propagandist can’t dispute the message - they resort to attacking not the messenger. Henry Morgenthau’s exact words are well documented. No ,after what link I post, you’ll ignore the facts and attack the source of the link.


rshermn said:


> The UE rate under republicans, from 1929 to january of 1933, watched the unemployment rate go from 2.5% to over 25%. In 4 years!!!!!!  Under FDR, the ue rate went from 25% when he took office to under 4%.


Oh snowflake...it was FDR who took a small recession and turned it into a full-blown depression. And then it took Republicans taking over at all other levels of government to undo the damage (just like under Barack Insane Obama). Even FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury  - *who was the architect of the entire “New Deal”* - openly admitted that it failed. And 75 years later, so did a UCLA study.

Now run along snowflake. Go find a a mesageboard for your shit-hole country.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > The analysis was for the term of Obama's time in office.  It included:
> ...





P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The social programs you decry - welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, are what kept your economy afloat and prevented the Great Recession from turning into another Great Depression. That’s why it’s referred to as a “social safety net”, and it worked.
> ...





P@triot said:


> Post #1343 and post #1345 flawlessly illustrate the difference between the right and the left.
> 
> While the left resorts to pure emotion (I love Barack Insane Obama for absolutely no reason - therefore he "saved the world"), the right examines history (ie Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s own words), reads new studies/data (such as that released by UCLA) and then draws a clear conclusion based on intellect.



Sorry, me poor ignorant con troll.  The UCLA study was an outlier, published by a couple of unknown economists trying to make a name for themselves.  At the same time, there are hundreds of economic studies that prove them wrong.  Kind of like the 2% of climate scientists that suggest global climate change is not man made, while the other 98% say it is.  But that UCLA study is now found in every single bat shit crazy con web site in the world, and is used only by all ot the con trolls of the world.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Kind of like the 2% of climate scientists that suggest global climate change is not man made, while the other 98% say it is.


And yet it is that 98% that has been caught *lying* over and over and over while that 2% has a flawless record. Seems like you always side with the liars, little boy. I wonder why that is?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Sorry, me poor ignorant con troll.  The UCLA study was an outlier, published by a couple of unknown economists trying to make a name for themselves.


Sorry my uninformed, uneducated, ignorant foreign troll...nothing could be further from the truth. Making stuff up (as you do in every post) is pitiful, unacceptable, and irresponsible.

The UCLA study was done at a left-wing institution by left-wing economists. And it is supported by FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury who was the architect behind the “New Deal”. You look like an absolute idiot trying to deny fact.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding


If all the nations in the world are in debt, where did all the money go???
- Steven Wright


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of like the 2% of climate scientists that suggest global climate change is not man made, while the other 98% say it is.
> ...


LIAR!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
> ...


To parasites such as yourself - who used it all on cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...


Yes - that’s what that “98%” of political activists posing as “scientists” are - but we’ve already established that, snowflake. We didn’t need you to weigh in to confirm it.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Pure projection!


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


You have only established that YOU are a LIAR!


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 3, 2018)

The Daily Signal?  You must kidding. 



P@triot said:


> Post #1343 and post #1345 flawlessly illustrate the difference between the right and the left.
> 
> While the left resorts to pure emotion (I love Barack Insane Obama for absolutely no reason - therefore he "saved the world"), the right examines history (ie Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s own words), reads new studies/data (such as that released by UCLA) and then draws a clear conclusion based on intellect.



Bullshit.  Liberals look at the massive transfer of wealth to the top engineered by the Reagan tax cuts. Volatility in the stock market increased leading to Black Monday in 1987. 

They look at total destabilization achieved by George W. Bush with his tax cuts, unfunded social programs, and deficit spending and wars. 

Obama righted the ship and presided over six years of unchecked growth in jobs, the economy and the stock market all while Republicans blamed Obama for the mess they created. Their refusal to pass any of his economic policies certainly slowed that recovery, even as they castigated Obama for the “weak recovery” and the deficit. 

Then Trump won and once again Republicans have cut taxes and can’t spend money fast enough. 

The stock market is already destabilizing, growth in employment has slowed. Republicans are already touting the failed and discredit policies of Trickle Down Economics which have been totally discredited.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Pure projection!


I’m the one who fights against the illegal, unconstitutional “social” program bullshit that you live off of.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Volatility in the stock market increased leading to Black Monday in 1987.


More indisputable evidence that the left is devoid of facts. For starters, “Black Monday” was the result of an economic warfare plot by the former U.S.S.R.

Second, it is also proof of how flawless conservative economic policy is. It took all of a single day to “recover”. Had the Dumbocrats been in charge - it would have turned into a full blown depression until Republicans were back in charge.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  You really like the nut case crazy con web site, the Daily Signal.  Got an impartial site, me boy. Of course you don't.
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> The Daily Signal?  You must kidding.


Ignoring for a moment that you even have a clue about “The Daily Signal”, prove that the story is inaccurate. Prove that Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn’t say that and I will delete my account and permanently leave USMB. I give my word.

(Psst...you can’t sweetie. It is 100% accurate)


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Once again the dumb dillhole rshermn can’t figure how how to post...


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Yup, you are indeed a congenital idiot/con troll.  Never had much education, I suspect.  Too stupid to get into college, eh me boy.  Which is why you are so stupid that you think scientists are political activists.  But then, you do not have the mental ability to understand what they say.  Just beyond you.
Did you know the Military is planning for global climate change, dipshit.  Do you suspect our military is also made up of political activists.  So, lets see:  We seem to have two options. 1.  we could believe you, an obvious con troll and idiot, or  2.  We could believe the highly educated, very rational, and experienced climate scientists and the US Military..  Who do you suspect we will choose, me boy?


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The Daily Signal?  You must kidding.
> ...



You see, if you had integrity, you would post content from impartial sources.  Not nut case crazy con web sites.  And then there would not be a need to read and vet your posts.  Dipshit.  A person with integrity does not ask someone to read a post from a partial web site.  Which is why I would NEVER post something from a far left web site.  Ever.  Because, you see, I have integrity, which you totally lack.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> The Daily Signal?  You must kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poor bat shit crazy con only uses nut case crazy conservative web sources.  Because, as a con, that is what he likes to believe.  Poor clown has no integrity, and is obviously stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Even FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury  - *who was the architect of the entire “New Deal”* - openly admitted that it failed.
> ...


It so easy to prove to everyone that you even *lie* about lying.


> He played a *major role* in designing and financing the New Deal


Boom! Now tell us all how Wikipedia is a “con troll” source. 

  

Henry Morgenthau Jr. - Wikipedia


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> You see, if you had integrity, you would post content from impartial sources.


The Daily Signal is as “impartial” as it gets, my fragile little snowflake. They are a policy think tank that simply studies data.


rshermn said:


> And then there would not be a need to *read* and vet your posts.


Ahahah! So not only do you admit that you don’t want to read posts but you also openly admit that you don’t want to research *facts*.

Boom! Typical ignorant partisan progressive!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Which is why I would NEVER post something from a far left web site.  Ever.


You never post links period - because you’re ignorant and you intend to stay that way. You have no desire to educate yourself.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Are you really working that hard at proving yourself to be stupid.  I understand Morganthau worked on the FDR plan.  But you did not say that.  You said he was the ARCHITECT of  it.  He was not.  And you link, if you could read, does not say he was.  Really, remedial reading may be available to even you, a congenital idiot.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


A. The exact quote was “political activists posing as scientists” (and it’s up above in this very post for everyone to see - proving yet again that you are a *liar*).

B. Only one of us can’t figure out how to reply properly to a post on this website and it sure as hell isn't me, snowflake!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...


Moving the goalposts after you were caught *lying*, ?


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > You see, if you had integrity, you would post content from impartial sources.
> ...


----------



## rshermn (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



You certainly did not catch me lying.  Because I never, ever lie.  You are the lier in this post.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Pure projection!
> ...



Spoken like a true Friedman occolyte. Friedmans’s policies have lead to massive transfers of wealth, lower wages, increased unememployment, poverty, and stock market volatility everywhere they’ve been tried.  And worse, they’ve lead to Death Squads, and mass murders of leftists, lawyers, and other leaders on the left because the results of these policies is so destructive to wages, employment and prices for the working people.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > You see, if you had integrity, you would post content from impartial sources.
> ...



The Heritage Institute is not impartial.  Since you’re a huge believer in Wikipedia:

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia

I haven’t done the kind of in depth study of their methods but I know how these kinds of biased right wing outfit use some questionable methods in gathering data from studies the Fraser Institute conducts to denigrate and slander the Canadian health care policy. 

So no. Research from Heritage is useless for your purposes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot is calling others trolls and ignorant.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> So no. Research from Heritage is useless for your purposes.


You’ve been challenged my dear. Prove that the quote from Henry Morgenthau Jr. was false and I will delete my USMB account and never return.

People on this board are so tired of you wing-nuts attacking the messenger when you can’t dispute the message. It’s immature and it’s tired.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> You are the *lier* in this post.


And snowflake here claims _other_ people couldn’t get into college...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Friedmans’s policies have lead to massive transfers of wealth


Wealth *isn’t* “transferred”. Never has been. Never will be (as long as conservatives still exist).

Milton Friedman’s policies lead to one thing and one thing _only_ - liberty. Some people use that liberty to *earn* wealth. Other people (called “progressives”) use that liberty to be self-destructive.

Either way - nobody “transferred” wealth. Only socialism does that. Ironically, the very thing your greedy and selfish ass is calling for.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Friedmans’s policies have lead to massive transfers of wealth, lower wages, increased unememployment, poverty, and stock market volatility everywhere they’ve been tried.


Really? They were “tried” by Republicans here in the U.S. since 2011 and we took unemployment from 10% (under Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats) to 4%.

Conversely, very wealthy Venezuela implemented idiotic, failed left-wing policy and now they are a third-world shit-hole in extreme poverty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...



Ummm.....Obama had massive majorities in the House and Senate when he took office.

* That, me boy, is a lie. He lost the majority in the senate after several months, 
*
Hey, moron, he had 58 Dem votes in the Senate the day he entered office.
How did he lose 9 Senate votes "after several months"? Idiot!

*and both the house and senate 2 years in.
*
Yeah, the America people realized he was a useless twat.

* Is that all you ever do,
*
All I do is point out your idiocy.


----------



## Toro (Mar 3, 2018)

Economics 101

First class: Tariffs destroy wealth.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Todd has always had trouble with the 60 vote closure rule in the Senate.  He just is not the sharpest tool in the drawer.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > So no. Research from Heritage is useless for your purposes.
> ...


Morgenthau's opinion cannot be substantiated.

Report to the mods for out processing.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Friedmans’s policies have lead to massive transfers of wealth, lower wages, increased unememployment, poverty, and stock market volatility everywhere they’ve been tried.
> ...



Gee, I must have missed the part where social programs, welfare, food stamps and Section 8 were cancelled.  Where minimum wage laws were rescinded and Obamacare never happened. 

By even suggesting that Friedmans policies were in play, you’ve revealed your ignorance on all things concerning the economy. 

Trump’s deregulation policies and tax cuts accelerating the transfer of wealth to to top are far closer to Friedman’s nonsense than anything Obama did, with or without Republicans in the House and Senate. 

As idiocy of constantly trotting out Venezuela or Greece as an example of failed left wing policies cannot be underestimated. 

Greece’s problems have more to do with public resistance to the austerity programs forced upon the Greek government by the Friedman acolytes at the IMF than because of “failed leftist policies”. 

 Venezuela has whipsawed between right wing dictators and far left populists who nationalized the oil business and then looted the treasury. When the bottom dropped out of the oil markets they were screwed.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 3, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Pure projection!
> ...


BULLSHIT!
You are the biggest leech that ever lived, and only accuse others to hide your laziness.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> As idiocy of constantly trotting out Venezuela or Greece as an example of failed left wing policies cannot be underestimated.


Neither can your denial of reality and excessive excuses. Every nation that has ever implemented left-policy has collapsed into total poverty and misery.

The U.S.S.R.? Check!
Cuba? Check!
Venezuela? Check!
Greece? Check!
Cambodia? Check!
Ethiopia? Check!


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> You are the biggest leech that ever lived, and only accuse others to hide your laziness.


Again...I’m the one fighting *against* the parasite policies that you mooch off of, snowflake. No matter how many times you attempt to accuse me of your sins, everyone on the board can see your posts demanding more handouts and everyone can see my posts demanding we end all of them.

I don’t blame you for being ashamed of being a parasite (you _should_ be). But what I do blame you for is going against your shame and still voting for the handouts you are ashamed about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 3, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...


*
Todd has always had trouble with the 60 vote closure rule in the Senate. *

I've always been good at knowing what majority means.......

_That, me boy, is a lie. He lost the majority in the senate after several months, 

^_
Unlike that moron.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Trump’s deregulation policies and tax cuts accelerating the transfer of wealth to to top are far closer to Friedman’s nonsense than anything Obama did, with or without Republicans in the House and Senate.


Oh snowflake...you poor little ignorant thing...there was a greater transfer of wealth to the top 1% under Barack Insane Obama than under George W. Bush or *President Trump*.

You really should stop trying to debate this. You don’t have the knowledge necessary.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Gee, I must have missed the part where social programs, welfare, food stamps and Section 8 were cancelled.  Where minimum wage laws were rescinded and Obamacare never happened.


It’s understandable - you’ve missed most things in life. The Republicans eliminated all income taxes at the state level in _some_ states. That brought in lots of businesses with their jobs. They also reduced regulations. That also brought in businesses with their jobs.

I take it education is less than stellar up there in Canada...eh?


----------



## WheelieAddict (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101


Friedman advocated for a negative income tax, giving poor people a guaranteed income. Would you agree?


----------



## WheelieAddict (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, I must have missed the part where social programs, welfare, food stamps and Section 8 were cancelled.  Where minimum wage laws were rescinded and Obamacare never happened.
> ...


The Great Kansas Tax Cut Experiment Crashes And Burns


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You are the biggest leech that ever lived, and only accuse others to hide your laziness.
> ...


Pure projection yet again.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 4, 2018)

Milton Friedman should have been tried for crimes against humanity. Instead he will be forgotten because his policies failed utterly. 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/amp

Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest

Milton Friedman: a study in failure


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

This is what left-wing policy does Dragonlady. It leaves _everyone_ (except for those in *control* of course) destitute in poverty and misery. These people now hunt stray dogs to eat because they were so stupid and so greedy, that they voted for socialism. Well, they got it. And now there is no going back. The dictators will never relinquish control.

Average Venezuelan Lost 24 Pounds Last Year Due to Economic Woes


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Milton Friedman should have been tried for crimes against humanity.


Spoken like a true fascist! Anyone who advocates for *liberty* should be executed!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This is what left-wing policy does Dragonlady. It leaves _everyone_ (except for those in *control* of course) destitute in poverty and misery. These people now hunt stray dogs to eat because they were so stupid and so greedy, that they voted for socialism. Well, they got it. And now there is no going back. The dictators will never relinquish control.  Average Venezuelan Lost 24 Pounds Last Year Due to Economic Woes


Your mind is meandering.  Compare nutrition among the populations in Central America during the hey day of agricultural capitalism in Central America from 1910 to 1940.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

WheelieAddict said:


> Friedman advocated for a negative income tax, giving poor people a guaranteed income. Would you agree?


A. That is already in place. It’s called welfare. 

B. Hell no. When you reward failure - you get _more_ failure. As Benjamin Franklin said “if you want to get people out of poverty, make them miserable in their poverty”.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

Welfare is not a negative income tax, and since you don't know that, you show us how you are ignorant on important matters.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This is what left-wing policy does Dragonlady. It leaves _everyone_ (except for those in *control* of course) destitute in poverty and misery. These people now hunt stray dogs to eat because they were so stupid and so greedy, that they voted for socialism. Well, they got it. And now there is no going back. The dictators will never relinquish control.
> 
> Average Venezuelan Lost 24 Pounds Last Year Due to Economic Woes



This isn’t left wing policy. It’s an authoritarian dictator looting the treasury for his own personal benefit. That’s why Venezuelan assets are being frozen around the world.

Why use the worst examples of abuse, mismanagement and corruption for your examples of failed leftist policies? Why not use the 20 or so social democracies that rank above the US in personal freedom, economic growth, education, health care, and quality of life?

You never mention Norway, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland, Great Britain, or other social democracies when talking about leftist policies?

Instead, you blame leftists for the mess that Friedman’s policies have made in your own country. 40 years of economic failure. And what is Trump doing?  Doubling down on those failures with massive tax cuts and massive increases in government spending all on the credit card. 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

He "You never mention Norway, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, or Switzerland, Great Britain, or other social democracies when talking about leftist policies?" because he is an alt right punk.  Don't know an alt righty who isn't a punk.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Milton Friedman should have been tried for crimes against humanity.
> ...



Spoken like a true con troll, or said another way, idiot.  First you call Dragonlady a socialist, then you call her  a fascist.  Now, any person with a brain and a little basic education knows the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  You can be a socialist, or a fascist.  Dipshit.  Con trolls simply like to call people names, because it is the best that they can do.
As an economist, it simply turned out that Milton was ALWAYS wrong.  He was  a champion of Supply Side Economics.  You know, me boy.  Also called Reagonomics, Trickle Down Economics, and top down economics.   Never, ever has worked in the long term.  Generally failed after a couple years, and then over the next decade or so.  So, Friedman's policy was an economic popular idea, and Friedman was equally popular.  But, as economists noticed that the policy failed, Friedman lost the popularity race, and in general, became about as popular as turd in a punchbowl.  
But, being idiots, cons still believe in the policy.  Even though Friedman, and Reagan, both proved the policy to be wrong.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Welfare is not a negative income tax, and since you don't know that, you show us how you are ignorant on important matters.




I think the boy is a congenital idiot.  Which makes the problem outside of his control.  Not his fault at all.  Just plain bad luck. 
We should all just feel sorry for him.     Nah.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare is not a negative income tax, and since you don't know that, you show us how you are ignorant on important matters.
> ...


He is not an idiot, just a punk of the alt right.  He wants a fascist dictatorship.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This is what left-wing policy does Dragonlady. It leaves _everyone_ (except for those in *control* of course) destitute in poverty and misery. These people now hunt stray dogs to eat because they were so stupid and so greedy, that they voted for socialism. Well, they got it. And now there is no going back. The dictators will never relinquish control.
> ...


It is vintage left-wing policy, liar. They voted for socialism. They got it.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Bwahahaha! They are on the exact same side of the spectrum, you high school dropout.


> “fascism and communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce, this has become almost a commonplace.”


That was F.A. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” who held 3 advanced degrees (PhD’s in political science, economics, and law) and studied fascism while living through it during WWII. It’s ok - none of us expect a high school dropout to have read The Road to Serfdom. Here is a chart to help dumb it down a little (it will still be far above your level but maybe the pictures will make it so that someone can explain it to you).




 

Excerpt From The Road to Serfdom
F. A. Hayek This material may be protected by copyright.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



I always thought that authoritarian dictators who loot the public purse were conservatives - Marcos, Batista,  The Shah of Iran.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



There isn’t a failed economist in the world you don’t subscribe to is there?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Even though Friedman, and Reagan, both proved the policy to be wrong.


Listen snowflake, no matter how much you *lie* about history so that you can continue being a parasite, you’ll never be able to rewrite it.

The Ronald Reagan economy was unparalleled for success. He took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (from Dumbocrat Jimmy Carter) and created an economic tidal wave that we rode into the 2000’s when Bill Clinton’s socialism collapsed the housing market. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> I always thought that authoritarian dictators who loot the public purse were conservatives - Marcos, Batista,  The Shah of Iran.


Well thinking was never your strong point so that doesn’t surprise me. Under Batista, Cuba flourished. Under left-wing Castro they have collapsed into perpetual poverty.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> There isn’t a failed economist in the world you don’t subscribe to is there?


Bwahahaha! So the side that claims they are all about “education” now rejects every and any PhD that doesn’t push the narrative that the left subscribes to! 

You’ve been completely and totally duped, sweetie. At some point, you are going to have to come to grips with that.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Welfare is not a negative income tax, and since you don't know that, you show us how you are ignorant on important matters.


Oh you poor little dimwit. It is the exact same thing. Both are “guaranteed” incomes from the government.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> He is not an idiot, just a punk of the alt right.  He wants a fascist dictatorship.


Well that would be one heck of a trick snowflake, considering that fascism is _exclusively_ left-wing. It is totalitarianism. And one cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. It’s as idiotic as saying “libertarian communism”


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare is not a negative income tax, and since you don't know that, you show us how you are ignorant on important matters.
> ...


No, they are not, you goofus.  But go ahead and show us how.  Understand ahead of time you will fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > He is not an idiot, just a punk of the alt right.  He wants a fascist dictatorship.
> ...


Once again the goofus reveals his ignorance of fascism, which like all Progressivist programs, has a right and left wing variant.

P@triot does not understand he is at war with the modern state and its practices, which Dem and GOP and Obama and Trump both practice or have practiced.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...




Damn. You find the most ignorant sources, me boy.  You are extremely wrong.  
Fascism is what Nazi Germany was founded on.
Socialism is what communism was founded on.  Two opposing systems.  Sorry you are so ignorant.

Here is the thing, me boy.  You may be a high school drop out, simply posting drivel.  I am not.  I have a degree in Economics.  And what you are trying to say is stupid as possible.

Here:

"For decades, the two terms have been used to identify two opposing political, social and economic theories that have dramatically marked human history during the XX century. *To date, fascism and socialism as such no longer exist (besides in some rare cases), and have been replaced by “neo-fascism” and “neo-socialism”.* Yet, modern thinking remains strictly intertwined with the originating paradigms.

_Let us proceed with order: to understand the differences (and the similarities) between fascism and socialism, we necessarily need a clear idea of the main features pertaining to both theories._

*Fascism:*
Fascism is a far-right nationalistic movement first born in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century[1]. According to one of its main exponents – Benito Mussolini – the fascist philosophy is based on three main pillars[2]:


“Everything in the state”
“Nothing outside the state”
“Nothing against the state”
A fascist government is supreme, and all institutions must conform to the willing of the ruling authority. Moreover, opposition is not tolerated: the fascist ideology has primacy and supremacy over all other perspectives, and the ultimate goal of a fascist country is to rule the world and spread the “superior ideology” everywhere.


Fascism exalts nation and race over the individual
Centralized, authoritarian, and often dictatorial government
Strong and charismatic leader
Strict governmental control over opposition, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
Severe social regulations
Crucial role of heroes
Strong attachment to moral, nationalistic values
Glory of the state over the individual
The individual is required to put the interest of the state before his personal goals/needs
Unique economy
Strong governmental involvement in economy an production
The State has strong influence over investment and industries
In order to receive the support of the government, businesses need to promise that their main interest is the enhancement of the country
Opposed to free market economy
In some instances, international trade is opposed (because of the primacy of the nationalist feeling
*For instance:*

The British National Party is strongly influenced by Fascist ideals – made clear by the anti-immigration tendencies
Many suggest that Trump’s policies have fascist connotations, in particular as far as immigration stance and national superiority are concerned
*Socialism:*
Socialism is often collocated in the opposite end of the spectrum compared to fascism; if fascism pertains to the group of far-rights movements, socialism is, then, located to the far-left[4]:


Socialism is an economic and social theory advocating for social ownership, and democratic control of the means of production
Strong governmental involvement in production and redistribution of goods and wealth
Abolition of private property
Means of production are controlled and owned by the state
None (besides the state) has personal control over resources
Production is directly and solely for use
Emphasis on equality rather than achievement
Primacy of the community over the individual
Moreover, there are many variants of socialism, such as:

Religious socialism
Democratic socialism
Liberal socialism
Progressive socialism
Communism (when socialism is exasperated)
Socialism is, to date, more widespread than fascism. Moreover, socialism can exist within countries as main overall economic and social system, but can be also present within segments of a country, such as in education, health care, and corporation systems. If a country has not declared itself as socialist in the national constitution, it cannot be labelled as socialist by third parties. To date, a number of countries have chosen to define themselves socialist nations:

Republic of India
Republic of Angola
Portuguese Republic
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
…among others…

*Where is the difference?*
Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.


Far-right vs far-left
Primacy of the nation vs protection of everyone’s rights
Private property vs public/social ownership
The socialist paradigm is based on the assumption that private property and free market inevitably lead to social and economic inequality. As such, the state has the moral and social duty to intervene to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that wealth is equally and harmoniously distributed. Socialist societies prevent economic competition within the country and with other countries.

Despite the large degree of variance existing within the socialist world, all policies implemented by all variants of socialism are based on the pivotal economic and social goals mentioned earlier. The idea of nation, race, and superiority are absent from the socialist thinking.

Fascism, instead, does not call for social equality nor cares about the equal redistribution of wealth and income. A fascist economy aims at the strengthening of the nation, at the propagation of nationalistic principles, and at the enhancement of national superiority.

Even if fascist economic policies often lead to economic growth – from which all segments of society can benefit –* social equality is not among the goals of the fascist paradigm.*

_S*ocialism and fascism are based on opposite principles and values, *however."
Difference between socialism and fascism | Difference Between_

Jesus, you are ignorant.  Saying socialism and fascism are alike is about as stupid as you can get.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 4, 2018)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What poster is defending the GOP? I keep seeing posts about it, but never actually see many posts defending the GOP. I see a lot more bashing them from moderates and rightists, and I also note no progs or Hillaryites ever have a disparaging word about the rampant criminality  and treason of the Democratic Party regime. Is that an indication that most of you support them in their actions? I think it does, and why we should deport registered Democrats to some country where they will be happy, like Red China, or maybe South Africa, or Somalia.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

Picaro said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Really?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> You are extremely wrong.
> Fascism is what Nazi Germany was founded on. *Socialism* is what communism was founded on.  Two opposing systems.  Sorry you are so ignorant.


Ahahahahahahahah! Nazi was short for National *Socialists* you dimwit. You literally just admitted that fascism is exclusively left-wing (just as I said, just as Dr. F.A. Hayek said) without even knowing it.

That is how astoundingly ignorant you are. You didn’t even know what Nazi stood for (which is common knowledge).


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> *Where is the difference?*
> Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.
> 
> Far-right vs far-left
> ...


You poor little guy...this is _really_ embarrassing for you:


> The National Socialist regime’s crimes against humanity, especially its attempt to exterminate the Jewish people, are well-known today. Fewer, however, recognize that the Nazi movement also embraced some indisputably socialist ideas. The 25-oint program adopted by the Nazis in 1920, for example, *demanded the nationalization of key industries and the expansion of old-age welfare*. *Nazi leaders also used consistently negative language about capitalism*, which they invariably portrayed as being controlled by “Jewish bankers.”


Just out of curiosity - what grade did you drop out of school?

The forgotten story of the German economic ‘miracle’ | Acton Institute


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> *Where is the difference?*
> Clearly, fascism and socialism differ on many fundamental aspects.
> 
> Far-right vs far-left
> ...


You poor little guy...this is _really_ embarrassing for you:


> *Adolf Hitler*’s own economic views are best described as eclectic. While proclaiming that “*we are socialists*” and that “*we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system*,” Hitler stressed on other occasions that the destruction of private property was a mistake. What is clear, however, is that *he believed that the economy, like everything else, was subordinate to the demands of a totalitarian state*.


You can’t have right-wing “totalitarianism”. The further right you go, government gets smaller and less powerful until it ceases to exist at all (anarchy). It would take a monumental idiot to declare that fascism is to the right of libertarianism when there was no liberty/dissension in fascism while libertarianism fully embraces that.

Just out of curiosity - what grade did you drop out of school?

The forgotten story of the German economic ‘miracle’ | Acton Institute


----------



## P@triot (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Here is the thing, me boy.  You may be a high school drop out, simply posting drivel.  I am not.  I have a degree in Economics.  And what you are trying to say is stupid as possible.


The _only_ thing you have a degree in is spreading misinformation. And you certainly do *not* have a degree in Political Science (by your own admission) while Dr. Hayek held a PhD in it.


----------



## regent (Mar 4, 2018)

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...


Morgenthau was a neighbor of FDR's and his expertise was agriculture. And he was one of the few that would stand up to FDR, and of course he was not the architect of New Deal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> > You are extremely wrong.
> ...


You dimwit, it was a party name.

You do not know that Hitler killed all the communists and socialists, but now you do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2018)

P@triot, you do not understand Hayek.  And you have Morgenthau doing things he did not do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 4, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > rshermn said:
> ...



Leftists never kill other leftists, eh comrade?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Hitler made a deal with the Army and the capitalist, comrade: hint, they are not left.  Then they killed the lefties.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 5, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Big government Nazi leftists killed big government Commie leftists.

When you get a chance, list Hitler's small government, freedom promoting ideas.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2018)

I get a kick when Toddster shows his dumminess. 

You do not understand Progressivism at all.

It comes in right, left, and center shades, with capitalistic and communistic or mixed economies, with democratic and totalitarian flavors.

Sonny, we don't live in 1900 anymore.


----------



## regent (Mar 5, 2018)

Bismarck, in the 1890's, brought socialism to Germany in fear of communism, not Hitler. As for Hitler's socialism most Americans at the time knew that Hitler's socialism was a farce.
Even "Time" magazine published in 1933, "The Nazi insert Socialist in the party's name  simply as a lure to discontented workers."


----------



## kwc57 (Mar 5, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> ^^^ kwc57???



Are you asking for help to understand something?  I've tried so many times and you keep sticking your head up your liberal ass.  It's kind of a wasted effort.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 5, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> I get a kick when Toddster shows his dumminess.
> 
> You do not understand Progressivism at all.
> 
> ...



Conservatives want a government so small, we can drown it in the bath tub.
Conservatives want government so small, we can push grandma off a cliff.
We want to privatize everything. Don't you remember?

We don't want government telling business what to do (fascism) or government owning 
the means of production (communism). Both philosophies require massive government in order
to sufficiently stifle the freedom that threatens their power.

The opposite of conservatism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 5, 2018)

Your "conservatives" don't exist, Toddster. Move along.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 5, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your "conservatives" don't exist, Toddster. Move along.



More of my conservatives exist than your "conservative" Nazis.


----------



## rshermn (Mar 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I get a kick when Toddster shows his dumminess.
> ...


You are talking about the LIBERTARIAN  ideal, me boy.  Please, before you entertain us further with your amusing ideas of perfect competition capitalism, tell me where it has ever succeeded.  You know, an actual country where a libertarian economy actually succeeded over time.  Like socialism has, and like mixed capitalistic-socialist economies have in many countries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2018)

rshermn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



*You are talking about the LIBERTARIAN ideal,
*
Yes, the opposite end of the spectrum from left-wing fascism and Communism.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



I'm not going to read 145 pages, so i'll add my comment here at the beginning of the foolishness by asking a not so simple couple of  questions:

Explain why economics differs from the other social sciences and why it can never be reduced to simplistic formulas
How many of you have heard of or read the works of Robert Louis Heilbroner
I suggest some of you look up Heilbroner and summaries of his many books on the issue the author of this post so childishly presented.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> ...



_Though an outspoken socialist for nearly his entire career, Heilbroner famously wrote in a 1989 New Yorker article prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union:_

_Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won...Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism.[3]
He further wrote in Dissent in 1992 that "capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure"[2] and complimented Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises on their insistence of the free market's superiority. He emphasized that "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."[3] However, Heilbroner's preferred capitalist model was the highly redistributionist welfare states of Scandinavia; he stated that his model society was "a slightly idealized Sweden."[4]

Robert Heilbroner - Wikipedia_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2018)

Yelling abut socialism, Todd, does not make libertarianism any better.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 6, 2018)

There is no "Capitalism", per se.  There are various forms of capitalism in a wide array of nations,  and in fact in the several US States, do not pretend it is a stand alone system of economic policies.

The markets exist in a state of flux, and the psychology of the people impacts bull and bear markets.  Free markets are an oxymoron, they exist among insider trading and react by chicanery, natural disasters or one's man made.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 6, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yelling abut socialism, Todd, does not make libertarianism any better.



Or any worse.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 6, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yelling abut socialism, Todd, does not make libertarianism any better.
> ...



Correct. Libertarianism could do more worse than its callous disregard for other citizens, and its lack of a pragmatic ideology.  It could become part of Trump&Co., and support the oligarchical fascism which came to power in Nov. 2016.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

regent said:


> As for Hitler's socialism most Americans at the time knew that Hitler's socialism was a farce. Even "Time" magazine published in 1933, "The Nazi insert Socialist in the party's name  simply as a lure to discontented workers."


Snowflake, that _alone_ proves that Hitler was left-wing. How many small-government right-wingers (such as Ronald Reagan) created propaganda to “lure discontented workers”? The entire point of small-government liberty-lovers (like Ronald Reagan) was to get people _away_ from government, shrink it’s size and power, and return personal responsibility to the individual.

To you hear how stupid you sound trying to proclaim that Adolf Hitler is to the right of libertarianism?!?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sonny, we don't live in 1900 anymore.


But Hitler did, snowflake. And he was as left-wing as left-wing gets. He was all about a totalitarian government. You cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. They are polar opposites.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> Libertarianism could do more worse than its callous disregard for other citizens


Says the misogynistic pig who demeans women and who is so selfish and greedy, he wants government to take care of people so he doesn’t have to!


----------



## regent (Mar 6, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > As for Hitler's socialism most Americans at the time knew that Hitler's socialism was a farce. Even "Time" magazine published in 1933, "The Nazi insert Socialist in the party's name  simply as a lure to discontented workers."
> ...


I don't think I have ever mentioned libertarianism on these boards, but thanks for mentioning Reagan. Reagan's greatest contribution to America was to vote for FDR every four years. In fact, history books mention that Reagan copied much of FDR's behavior.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 6, 2018)

regent said:


> I don't think I have ever mentioned libertarianism on these boards.


Nobody asked if you mentioned libertarianism on this board. Did that question so scare you to the bone that you feel the need to change the conversation?

Your (idiotic) position is that fascism is far right-wing. The rest of us rational people here on USMB would like to hear you explain how Adolf Hitler is further to the “right” of libertarianism when their ideologies couldn’t be more polar opposite.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> [s Ronald Reagan) created propaganda to “lure discontented workers”? The entire point of small-government liberty-lovers (like Ronald Reagan) was to get people _away_ from government, shrink it’s size and power, and return personal responsibility to the individual.  To you hear how stupid you sound trying to proclaim that Adolf Hitler is to the right of libertarianism?!?


How much did the government grow and the budget grow under Reagan.  Only fools like you write that Hitler is to the right of libertarianism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 7, 2018)

Only Patriot is mentioning libertarianism here, when in fact it is not part of the discussion.  He is saying silling things like, "Nobody asked if you mentioned libertarianism on this board. Did that question so scare you to the bone that you feel the need to change the conversation"?  It's simply a nonsense tactic that falls flat.

He also says stupid things like "explain how Adolf Hitler is further to the “right” of libertarianism when their ideologies couldn’t be more polar opposite" when only he has suggested such a thing.

He is a complete moron.


----------



## Votto (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.
> 
> Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101



You assume that Dims want the government to be fiscally successful.

Now if you disdain the Constitution, how do you go about getting rid of it entirely?

It seems the only way would be to bring down the entire country.  Then a strong man can come in and set up a despotism, preferably a global one where there is no decent and no rights outside of governmental power.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > As for Hitler's socialism most Americans at the time knew that Hitler's socialism was a farce. Even "Time" magazine published in 1933, "The Nazi insert Socialist in the party's name  simply as a lure to discontented workers."
> ...



A piece of mental masturbation ^^^; proof its author really can play with himself and lose.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarianism could do more worse than its callous disregard for other citizens
> ...



Did you complete high school?  My guess is sometime around the 6th or 7th grade you got chased home and beaten up for being a jerk.  Likely you got tired of getting your ass kicked and dropped out of school before finishing high school. If you had you might be able to write something expository.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> How many small-government right-wingers (such as Ronald Reagan) created propaganda to “lure discontented workers”? The entire point of small-government liberty-lovers (like Ronald Reagan)


Hitler was a God to Reagan, and you know it.


----------



## regent (Mar 7, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


What's wrong with not finishing high school? I didn't, and feel fine about it.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> Did you complete high school?  My guess is sometime around the 6th or 7th grade you got chased home and beaten up for being a jerk.  Likely you got tired of getting your ass kicked and dropped out of school before finishing high school. If you had you might be able to write something expository.


Says the parasite who goes on to message boards and *lies* about what he did for a living.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Neither did Guy Catcher...don’t let him kid you.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> Do you think it is still possible that a person can take an ideology that many people


Uh...._what_? Is it just me or did you stop in the middle of your question here?


----------



## regent (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > How many small-government right-wingers (such as Ronald Reagan) created propaganda to “lure discontented workers”? The entire point of small-government liberty-lovers (like Ronald Reagan)
> ...


Says the facists that worships Hitler.

He disarmed the population..._you_ want to disarm the population.
He believed in totalitarianism..._you_ want totalitarianism.
He had latent homosexual issues...._you_ have latent homosexual issues
He believed in violence to achieve his bat-shit crazy ideology..._you_ believe in violence to achieve that same bat-shit crazy ideology


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> Do you think it is still possible that a person can take an ideology that many people know, and evidence is all about, and redefine it to fit their needs?


I believe that people can rewrite history (as we have seen the left do) and attempt to hijack terms (as we have seen the left do with “liberalism”), but I’m not sure one could “take an ideology” and “redefine it to fit their needs”.

For starters...how do you “take” _anything_ that isn’t tangible? You can certainly copy an idea - but you can’t literally “take” it. The person with the original idea still has the idea even if you copy it or try to take credit for it.


----------



## edthecynic (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


LIAR!


----------



## regent (Mar 7, 2018)

P@triot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think it is still possible that a person can take an ideology that many people know, and evidence is all about, and redefine it to fit their needs?
> ...


Is liberalism an ideology?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Liberalism seeks to define problems and seek solutions.  It's really that simple. Conservatism in the 21st Century creates problems, and seeks to justify them. 

(l)iberals see the Preamble to the Constitution as both a Vision Statement and a Mission Statement; conservatives cherry pick from the Articles and ignore the message in the Preamble.  It's really that simple.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Good for you.  You don't know what you missed, but if you're happy that's fine with me.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liberalism seeks to define problems and seek solutions.  It's really that simple.


I think that Guy Catcher hit on the edges of reality here when he mentioned the terms liberalism, seeks, and problems. Modern day liberalism seeks problems so that they can exploit and capitalize on them. When they do, they create the problems. A prime example of this is Obamacare. We had the best healthcare in the world. Liberals did their best to “seek” a problem with it. They used it to create Obamacare, and now healthcare costs have skyrocketed, insurance policies are worse than ever, and many insurers have gone out of business and/or left the “exchanges”.

Why do they do this? Because, at the end of the day, the modern day liberal has developed into a parasite that just wants to mooch off of society. It really is _that_ simple.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with not finishing high school? I didn't, and feel fine about it.
> ...


Look at how disingenuous Guy Catcher is. He’ll accuse conservatives of dropping out of school becuase he views it as an insult. But when a fellow progressive admits that they dropped out of school, he immediately drops to his knees and fellates them.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 7, 2018)

regent said:


> Is liberalism an ideology?


Yes (unless you’re asking an actual liberal - in which case they will ask stuff like “what really _is_ an ideology” and “is anything actually an ideology”?).

Remember when Bill Clinton said “what is _is_”?


----------



## P@triot (Mar 8, 2018)

Nobody knows how to take low wage jobs and convert them into *no* wage jobs like Dumbocrats...


> In Arizona, the $15 minimum wage is predicted to result in more than 200,000 lost jobs—almost all among the state's lowest-skilled workers.


Left-wing policy _always_ ends the same: more unemployment, more poverty, more misery.

Minimum Wage Hike Is Killing Jobs in This Arizona City


----------



## regent (Mar 13, 2018)

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


But after dropping high school I went on to college.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 14, 2018)

regent said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Hey...you don’t have to explain to me. I’m *not* the one insulting your life choices. That’s Guy Catcher.

That being said...kudos for pulling that off. It can’t be easy to drop out of high school and _still_ get accepted into college. I salute you!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......
> ...


And?  which part of they were allowed to Self Regulate didn't you understand...........

I don't believe in TOO BIG TO FAIL...............If they invest and screw the hell. up then their assets should have been SEIZED, TAKEN and SOLD to someone else...............

They gambled with others money and with Fractional Banking System counterfeit money......lol..........Out of thin air.............and THEY FUCKED THIS COUNTRY........

Tarred and Feathered would have been a solution for them


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts -- Sott.net

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..Citigroup: *$2.5 trillion* ($2,500,000,000,000) 
Morgan Stanley: *$2.04 trillion* ($2,040,000,000,000) 
Merrill Lynch: *$1.949 trillion* ($1,949,000,000,000) 
Bank of America: *$1.344 trillion* ($1,344,000,000,000) 
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): *$868 billion* ($868,000,000,000) 
Bear Sterns: *$853 billion* ($853,000,000,000) 
Goldman Sachs:* $814 billion* ($814,000,000,000) 
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK):* $541 billion* ($541,000,000,000) 
JP Morgan Chase: *$391 billion* ($391,000,000,000) 
Deutsche Bank (Germany): *$354 billion* ($354,000,000,000) 
UBS (Switzerland): *$287 billion* ($287,000,000,000) 
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): *$262 billion* ($262,000,000,000) 
Lehman Brothers: *$183 billion* ($183,000,000,000) 
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom):* $181 billion* ($181,000,000,000) 
BNP Paribas (France): *$175 billion* ($175,000,000,000) 
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all placesView the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011):


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

GAO Fed Investigation | Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act | Federal Reserve System


This Federal Investigation and DISCLOSURE was ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT..........

Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> I don't believe in TOO BIG TO FAIL...............If they invest and screw the hell. up then their assets should have been SEIZED, TAKEN and SOLD to someone else...............


No argument there.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> And?  which part of they were allowed to Self Regulate didn't you understand...........


Which part of “the government has absolutely no constitutional authority to ‘regulate’ private industry” do _you_ not understand?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > And?  which part of they were allowed to Self Regulate didn't you understand...........
> ...


Interstate Commerce ...........................hmmmmm


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> They gambled with others money and with Fractional Banking System counterfeit money......lol..........Out of thin air.............and THEY FUCKED THIS COUNTRY........


The _only_ one’s to “fuck this country” is the Dumbocrats. Private industry has absolutely no power to “fuck” anyone. Had they been allowed to fail, they would be gone and we would be even more prosperous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts -- Sott.net
> 
> The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..Citigroup: *$2.5 trillion* ($2,500,000,000,000)
> Morgan Stanley: *$2.04 trillion* ($2,040,000,000,000)
> ...



And all those short term loans were paid off.
The lender of last resort.....lent.
The global banking system did not collapse.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


The regulations on the banking industry (and billions of others) are *not* “interstate” regulations. Hmmmmmm.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > They gambled with others money and with Fractional Banking System counterfeit money......lol..........Out of thin air.............and THEY FUCKED THIS COUNTRY........
> ...


Not without a currency meltdown.......................The manipulation of money has NO BOUNDS ANYMORE...........

Regulating Trade is in the Inumerated Powers of the Founding Fathers...................Just saying


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...


Really...........................The Glass Steagall ACT did that exactly.................


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)




----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> The manipulation of money has NO BOUNDS ANYMORE...........


Once again I agree *100%*. And who is the only one with the power to manipulate money? The government. Private industry cannot print money, implement laws or regulations affecting it, or cause inflation or deflation.

This is exactly why we must explicitly restrict the federal government to their 18 enumerated powers.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


You might want to read that again. It doesn’t even remotely imply interstate. That applies to a New York bank making a loan to a New York customer or a Texas bank making a loan to a Texas customer. Do you not understand what “interstate” means?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts -- Sott.net
> ...


They paid off the TARP loans right after their trip to the Federal Reserve Back Door.................

Then the news went SEE..........they paying it off................

Why did they need the TARP side loans if they were getting loans from the back door of the Federal Reserve already...................

To Feed the public BS...........


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > P@triot said:
> ...



Interstate..........hmmmm Alabama and Mississippi have a interstate connecting them and they are clearly 2 different states............And their BANKING was seperate under regulations of Glass Steagall........Act..............

No amount of arguments will make me EVER BELIEVE DIFFERENT that the FUCKING BANKERS and GOV'T ASSHOLES FUCKED our country and KNEW DAMNED WELL WHAT THEY WERE DOING.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


>


One problem with that. Abraham Lincoln was unquestionably killed because of the Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent victory of the North over the South in the Civil War. John Wilkes Booth did *not* kill him because of the Federal Reserve and that is an indisputable fact.

And while there is significant controversy surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, it is likely it was the result of him fucking the C.I.A. at the Bay of Pigs. He also fucked the mafia over big time - he used them to get elected (making promises to them in return) and then appointed his brother Attorney General and went after them aggressively. The Federal Reserve would be way down the list of reasons Kennedy was killed.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Interstate..........hmmmm Alabama and Mississippi have a interstate connecting them and they are clearly 2 different states.......


Well, snowflake, a highway *isn’t* “commerce”. 

The connection of one state to another with roads has nothing to do with “interstate commerce”. First I didn’t think you knew what interstate meant. Now it’s obvious you have no clue what “commerce” means.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Executive Order 11110 - Wikipedia


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

P@triot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Interstate..........hmmmm Alabama and Mississippi have a interstate connecting them and they are clearly 2 different states.......
> ...


The interstate was Sarcasm.............but it passed you by.............I was making a joke and you simply didn't get it............

Your problem and not mine


----------



## eagle1462010 (Mar 17, 2018)

While I'm no big fan of the Rolling Stones...........................this investigation report is pretty good if you want to read it..............

The Great American Bubble Machine - Rolling Stone


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Glass-Steagall wouldn't have stopped banks from writing crappy mortgages, wouldn't have prevented the crisis


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


>


There was no central bank while Lincoln was President......FAIL

JFK gave the Fed the power to print $1 and $2 FRNs.....FAIL again


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



*They paid off the TARP loans right after their trip to the Federal Reserve Back Door.................
*
They paid off the TARP and the Fed loans.
The US Treasury made $87 billion in profits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Thanks for the link......
_
In 1961, at my direction, sales of silver were suspended by the Secretary of the Treasury. As further steps, I recommend repeal of those Acts that oblige the Treasury to support the price of silver; and repeal of the special 50-percent tax on transfers of interest in silver and authorization for the Federal Reserve System to issue notes in denominations of $1, so as to make possible the gradual withdrawal of silver certificates from circulation and the use of the silver thus released for coinage purposes. I urge the Congress to take prompt action on these recommended changes.
_
This gives the Fed more power, it doesn't weaken the Fed.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


No it wasn’t. Not even a little. Be a man and own that shit. You stretched and failed miserably.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 17, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Not to mention that Abraham Lincoln was unquestionably assassinated over slavery. The only thing worse than conspiracy memes are uneducated conspiracy memes.


----------



## P@triot (Mar 23, 2018)

It isn’t such a shame that half of the left is so profoundly ignorant of basic economics and the other half is so unethical and devious that the egregiously lie about economics so that they can mooch off of society.


> One would have expected gross revenue to plummet in February once the new tax rates were applied to withholdings for this year. My withholdings dropped already for the last two weeks in January but by February everyone should have seen the effects of the tax cut and revenue to the Treasury should have shrunk noticeably. After all, on some measure this was the largest tax cut in history. Yet compared with February 2017, gross revenue was nearly unchanged. *It actually ticked up very slightly by $1.36 billion*.


Conservatives have known this for decades and decades. It’s just basic math and it indisputably proves the Laffer Curve. Revenues to the government went *up* after the tax cuts (because more people were employed in a better economy thanks to the tax cuts, which provides the government with a significantly large pool of people to tax). Which in turn, proves that we unquestionably have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

How about that? Revenue stays the same after massive tax cut


----------



## P@triot (Mar 29, 2018)

Low tax conservative policy = universal prosperity

High tax progressive policy = universal poverty

History has proven it over and over and over without exception...

Tax Reform Is Boosting Take-Home Pay for Millions of Americans


----------



## P@triot (Apr 6, 2018)

History has proven it over and over and over. Conservative policy ends in prosperity every time. Left-wing policy ends in poverty *every* time.


> Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor.


Left-wing policy collapsed Detroit - resulting in an entire city filing for bankruptcy. It is about to do the same thing with the state of California.

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


----------

