# France is Fucked



## GHook93

They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics! 

His platform:
(1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
(2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country. 
(3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
(4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)


So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals and France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country. 

This scumbag is leading the polls!


----------



## The T

GHook93 said:


> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!


 
So France has an Obama too?

Whod'a thunk it?


----------



## francoHFW

Sounds good. Screw conservatives and austerity that doesn't work. Especially screw Pubs who got us in this mess, and don't mind keeping us there to get power back, to steal again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

francoHFW said:


> Sounds good. Screw conservatives and austerity that doesn't work. Especially screw Pubs who got us in this mess, and don't mind keeping us there to get power back, to steal again.



Worked great for Newark and Detroit


----------



## syrenn

GHook93 said:


> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!



They are french... what else would you expect?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Don't we still owe them for America?


----------



## Jroc

Dick Tuck said:


> Don't we still owe them for America?



No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs


----------



## Saigon

Jroc said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
Click to expand...


I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies. 

France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India. 

Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.


----------



## Political Junky

The extreme right wing candidate got 18%..the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen. 
Sarkozy is trying to get their vote, but he's lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen


----------



## Political Junky

Republicans have always thought France was fucked, regardless of who was in office there.


----------



## Saigon

GHook93 said:


> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)



So in retrospect, would you say France was right or wrong to kill more than one million Algerian people in a colonialist war, thus forcing many Algerian people to leave the country of their birth and move to France? 

How much time have you spent in France, by the way? 

By and large, would you say it seemed wealthy, or poor?

It's worth keeping in mind that France has a far better health care system than the US will ever have, great schools, a very strong and vibrant culture, and French workers enjoy around triple the holiday time American workers get. So who is better off?


----------



## Jroc

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


D-day was a U.S. led invasion, we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan ungrateful idiots


----------



## Jroc

Saigon said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in retrospect, would you say France was right or wrong to kill more than one million Algerian people in a colonialist war, thus forcing many Algerian people to leave the country of their birth and move to France?
> 
> How much time have you spent in France, by the way?
> 
> By and large, would you say it seemed wealthy, or poor?
> 
> It's worth keeping in mind that France has a far better health care system than the US will ever have, great schools, *a very strong and vibrant culture*, and French workers enjoy around triple the holiday time American workers get. So who is better off?
Click to expand...





> In France, there are approximately 750 'no-go' zones for French police. In some neighborhoods, Muslim citizens close off streets and sidewalks on their own authority for Friday prayers, which prevents residents who are not Muslim from entering or leaving the area. Some mosques also broadcast preaching and prayers over loudspeakers. Many French citizens have deemed this as 'occupation without tanks or soldiers' but French police have refused to intervene in fear of riots.




Read more: No-Go Zones for Non-Muslims Multiplying All Over Europe - Technorati Politics


----------



## Saigon

The operation, planned by a team under Lieutenant-General Frederick Morgan, was the largest amphibious invasion in world history and was* executed by land, sea, and air elements under direct British command* with over 160,000[6] troops landing on June 6, 1944. 195,700[7] Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000[6] ships were involved.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings]Normandy landings

Of the approx. 160,000 troops involved, some 55,000 were from the US.


----------



## Political Junky

Jroc said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D-day was a U.S. led invasion, we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan ungrateful idiots
Click to expand...

Rebuilding, Marshall Plan, had nothing to do with France, since it wasn't bombed.


----------



## Jroc

Saigon said:


> The operation, planned by a team under Lieutenant-General Frederick Morgan, was the largest amphibious invasion in world history and was* executed by land, sea, and air elements under direct British command* with over 160,000[6] troops landing on June 6, 1944. 195,700[7] Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000[6] ships were involved.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings]Normandy landings
> 
> Of the approx. 160,000 troops involved, some 55,000 were from the US.




Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?

On June 5, 1944, *Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower *orders the massive Allied Expeditionary Force into action.


----------



## Jroc

Political Junky said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D-day was a U.S. led invasion, we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan ungrateful idiots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rebuilding, Marshall Plan, had nothing to do with France, *since it wasn't bombed*.
Click to expand...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np8qtThNmgU]WW2 newsreel about the attack on Brest, France - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon

Jroc said:


> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?



Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point. 

Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting. 

The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.


----------



## Jroc

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
Click to expand...



Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards


----------



## Political Junky

Jroc said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
Click to expand...

Switzerland was never occupied.


----------



## The Infidel

syrenn said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are french... what else would you expect?
Click to expand...



And we are looking more and more like them every day


----------



## Saigon

Jroc said:


> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards



Firstly, no, not all of Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis. (Off the top of my head: Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Turkey and much of Eastern Europe). 

Secondly, countries like Belgium, Holland, Poland or Denmark could no more defeat the neighbouring superpower on a battlefield than Hawaii could single handedly defeat Japan. They all fought, but but their defeat was less a failure of politics or military preparation than of geography. 

Lastly, all European countries DO, and always have, funded their own defense. Many also assist in the defense of US interests as part of NATO. It's called co-operation. 

Why were European armies in Korea, Viet Nam or Iraq? 

To protect US interests, not European interests.


----------



## tinydancer

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


"us" a collective noun. As in Allies. Is your game really grammar?


----------



## bripat9643

Dick Tuck said:


> Don't we still owe them for America?




No, you dumb fuck.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


You're a moron.  Tell us who landed at Normandy.


----------



## tinydancer

Saigon said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in retrospect, would you say France was right or wrong to kill more than one million Algerian people in a colonialist war, thus forcing many Algerian people to leave the country of their birth and move to France?
> 
> How much time have you spent in France, by the way?
> 
> By and large, would you say it seemed wealthy, or poor?
> 
> It's worth keeping in mind that France has a far better health care system than the US will ever have, great schools, a very strong and vibrant culture, and French workers enjoy around triple the holiday time American workers get. So who is better off?
Click to expand...


France has the most enviable health care system. Right up with the Swiss.

It's two tiered and it is highly monitored. I've been studying it for years and been pushing my conservative government towards it.

But don't dare try to make it "universal"  or pretend it is universal. 

Now to the general.
France has been an entitlement culture for decades. They are in deep shit financially. If Hollande wins, the country is toast because the wealthy already have contingency plans to bail.

Hollande used his affair with the top bitch at the top version of their left wing media to perpetuate his "moderation" . Yeah his moderation of only taxing the wealthy 75%. Hollande wins watch a massive run on French banks.

It will be most interesting to watch. The socialist will go down in the anals of history of bringing France to her knees, bitch slapping her to hell and going out in a blaze of left wing bullshit.


----------



## tinydancer

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
Click to expand...


Just a big hint here. Use the term Allies. 

Far more accurate.

To attempt to dissect "who did what when" you really can't do that in WWII. We were an alliance.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> The operation, planned by a team under Lieutenant-General Frederick Morgan, was the largest amphibious invasion in world history and was* executed by land, sea, and air elements under direct British command* with over 160,000[6] troops landing on June 6, 1944. 195,700[7] Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000[6] ships were involved.
> 
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings]Normandy landings
> 
> Of the approx. 160,000 troops involved, some 55,000 were from the US.



And 90% of the material, ships and equipment were American.  We also bombed the crap out of Germany on a daily basis.  Furthermore, after the initial landing, the U.S. poured millions of troops into the European theater, and we landed troops in southern France.

By the time France was liberated there were far more than 55,000 Americans in Europe.


----------



## bripat9643

Political Junky said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D-day was a U.S. led invasion, we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan ungrateful idiots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rebuilding, Marshall Plan, had nothing to do with France, since it wasn't bombed.
Click to expand...


Almost every country in Europe received money under the Marshall Plan


----------



## HUGGY

*France is Fucked 
*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U]Surprise Surprise Surprise - YouTube[/ame]

You could have knocked me over with a feather!


----------



## Saigon

bripat9643 said:


> And 90% of the material, ships and equipment were American.  We also bombed the crap out of Germany on a daily basis.  Furthermore, after the initial landing, the U.S. poured millions of troops into the Europe



Yes, yes, yes...America saved the world. No one else was involved. It was all America. 

America liberated Poland single handedly, poured troops into the Ukraine and was the only country to ever defeat the Soviet Union on the battlefield.

Jesus wept. 

btw, it is not 'the' Europe, just 'Europe'.


----------



## bripat9643

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of the material, ships and equipment were American.  We also bombed the crap out of Germany on a daily basis.  Furthermore, after the initial landing, the U.S. poured millions of troops into the Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes...America saved the world. No one else was involved. It was all America.
> 
> America liberated Poland single handedly, poured troops into the Ukraine and was the only country to ever defeat the Soviet Union on the battlefield.
> 
> Jesus wept.
> 
> btw, it is not 'the' Europe, just 'Europe'.
Click to expand...


Yes, we pretty much did save the world.  We provided about 80% of all the material and weapons for prosecuting the war.  We provided the Soviets with all of their trucks, much of their air force and much of their raw materials, food and equipment.  If it wasn't for U.S. aid, U.S. bombing of Germany, and U.S. invasions in Africa, Italy and France, Germany would have wipe Russia out.


----------



## syrenn

Jroc said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
Click to expand...


They actually owe us three times over saving their asses..... WWI..WWII and Veitmam!


----------



## Saigon

tinydancer said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a big hint here. Use the term Allies.
> 
> Far more accurate.
> 
> To attempt to dissect "who did what when" you really can't do that in WWII. We were an alliance.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more - which is exactly why I picked up on a poster claiming "the US" liberated France.


----------



## tinydancer

Saigon said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a big hint here. Use the term Allies.
> 
> Far more accurate.
> 
> To attempt to dissect "who did what when" you really can't do that in WWII. We were an alliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more - which is exactly why I picked up on a poster claiming "the US" liberated France.
Click to expand...


One always has to remember how history is written and then taught in schools. Otherwise you are shadow boxing.


----------



## theunbubba

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we still owe them for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...


Yeah sure, asshat. Normandy never happened did it? Go fuck your revisionist version of history.


----------



## theunbubba

Political Junky said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Switzerland was never occupied.
Click to expand...


Switzerland never lifted a fucking finger either. So What's your point?


----------



## Saigon

theunbubba said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... They still owe us for saving their asses and liberating them from the NAZIs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah sure, asshat. Normandy never happened did it? Go fuck your revisionist version of history.
Click to expand...


What 'revisionism'? Why would you say Normandy never happened....do you see anyone on this thread suggesting that?

It is simply a fact that the single largest contingent in the D-Day landings were troops from the UK. In all, some 160,000 Allied troops were involved. Of those, around 73,000 were from the US. Of the 7 commanders, 5 were British. Nine countries fought on the Allied side, several others sent volunteers. 

Given around 90,000 troops involved in the D-Day landings were not American, it is simply inaccurate to suggest that the US liberated France.


----------



## JoeB131

GHook93 said:


> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!



So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?  

This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.  

Lesson won't be learned though.


----------



## SniperFire

JoeB131 said:


> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?



Just like Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, California, etc.


----------



## SniperFire

Mr Sarkozy, who on Friday said: "I don't think anyone wants France to be in the situation that Spain is in today, after seven years of Socialist government."

"Look at Spain," he said. "Do you want the same situation? The issue isn't to frighten. The issue is to look across our border" where unemployment recently hit almost 24.5 per cent.'



Freeloaders are the same all over.


----------



## JoeB131

SniperFire said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, California, etc.
Click to expand...


Ummm,yeah, all places that went broke after we gave huge tax breaks to billionaires... thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## tinydancer

JoeB131 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.
> 
> Lesson won't be learned though.
Click to expand...


If France goes with Hollande, keep your eye on Merkel. The Euro will be over.

Instead of stopping spending, Hollande vows to tax every person over a miniscule amount of revenue 75%.

All hell is going to break loose. Merkel will not stand for the marxist Hollande, and Germany will isolate herself very quickly as to not be tied down to a sinking ship.


----------



## JoeB131

SniperFire said:


> Mr Sarkozy, who on Friday said: "I don't think anyone wants France to be in the situation that Spain is in today, after seven years of Socialist government."
> 
> "Look at Spain," he said. "Do you want the same situation? The issue isn't to frighten. The issue is to look across our border" where unemployment recently hit almost 24.5 per cent.'
> 
> 
> 
> Freeloaders are the same all over.



Again, Spain did everything you guys said. They had little deficit spending, and they cut taxes.  

And they're still screwed.


----------



## JoeB131

tinydancer said:


> If France goes with Hollande, keep your eye on Merkel. The Euro will be over.
> 
> Instead of stopping spending, Hollande vows to tax every person over a miniscule amount of revenue 75%.
> 
> All hell is going to break loose. Merkel will not stand for the marxist Hollande, and Germany will isolate herself very quickly as to not be tied down to a sinking ship.



Since the Euro was a horrible idea, that would probably be a good thing.


----------



## tinydancer

JoeB131 said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, California, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm,yeah, all places that went broke after we gave huge tax breaks to billionaires... thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...


Detroit has been fucked up since the 60's. Want to run that theory of tax breaks to me?
Completely mother trucking corrupt for forever. And you want to see slums? YOWZAH.

Since LBJ. Stop with the tax break to billionaire shit. You embarrass yourself.

Actually, I should ask, Have you ever been to any of these places that you comment on?


----------



## SniperFire

JoeB131 said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Sarkozy, who on Friday said: "I don't think anyone wants France to be in the situation that Spain is in today, after seven years of Socialist government."
> 
> "Look at Spain," he said. "Do you want the same situation? The issue isn't to frighten. The issue is to look across our border" where unemployment recently hit almost 24.5 per cent.'
> 
> 
> 
> Freeloaders are the same all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Spain did everything you guys said. They had little deficit spending, and they cut taxes.
> 
> And they're still screwed.
Click to expand...


Spain has had 7 years of Socialist government, and they are trying to blame their 24.5% unemployment on .......   their conservatives?








I am not an expert here, but if we have spooky parallels to America, did Spain have a 'Pre-Pelosia Era' equivalent of prosperity as well?


December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth.
Publication: Business Wire 
Date: Friday, January 4 2008 

More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent.'

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indi cators/economic-indicators/5848024-1.html


----------



## SniperFire

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, California, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm,yeah, all places that went broke after we gave huge tax breaks to billionaires... thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Detroit has been fucked up since the 60's. Want to run that theory of tax breaks to me?
> Completely mother trucking corrupt for forever. And you want to see slums? YOWZAH.
> 
> Since LBJ. Stop with the tax break to billionaire shit. You embarrass yourself.
> 
> Actually, I should ask, Have you ever been to any of these places that you comment on?
Click to expand...


Cleveland and Detroit, for example, have a small handful of 'billionaires,' none of course whom actually live in the cities in question.


----------



## Douger

theunbubba said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
> 
> 
> 
> Switzerland was never occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Switzerland never lifted a fucking finger either. So What's your point?
Click to expand...

That's becuase the Swiss are intelligent.


----------



## Erand7899

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
Click to expand...


You are badly mistaken.  US forces landing on Normandy on D-day numbered 73,000 men, on two beaches.  The British landed 61,715.  Canadians landed on the British beaches numbered 22,400.


----------



## Sallow

GHook93 said:


> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!



Scumbag?

That's good political discourse?

And cool..let the rich "flee". I'd love them to flee this country. They are wealth extractors sucking America dry.


----------



## SniperFire

Sallow said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> That's good political discourse?
> 
> And cool..let the rich "flee". I'd love them to flee this country. They are wealth extractors sucking America dry.
Click to expand...


Bring about conditions where investment capital vanishes and completely collapses the economy,then?

Obama could use you on his economic team.

LOL


----------



## JoeB131

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, California, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm,yeah, all places that went broke after we gave huge tax breaks to billionaires... thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Detroit has been fucked up since the 60's*. Want to run that theory of tax breaks to me?
> Completely mother trucking corrupt for forever. And you want to see slums? YOWZAH.
> 
> Since LBJ. Stop with the tax break to billionaire shit. You embarrass yourself.
> 
> Actually, I should ask, Have you ever been to any of these places that you comment on?
Click to expand...


Since the 1960's?  YOu mean when Romney's Father was governor?   

here's the gag.  When you cut taxes without cutting government spending, which is exactly what we've been doing since 1980, you make government spending MORE popular, not less.  

Because you get all these benefits and you don't have to pay for them.  

It's like giving someone an unlimited credit card, really.  That they never have to make payments on.  

This is why Government has grown since the Reagan tax cuts, not shrunk.


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scumbag?
> 
> That's good political discourse?
> 
> And cool..let the rich "flee". I'd love them to flee this country. They are wealth extractors sucking America dry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bring about conditions where investment capital vanishes and completely collapses the economy,then?
> 
> Obama could use you on his economic team.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...




They didn't flee the country when top rates were over 90%. In any case..where are they going to go?


----------



## tinydancer

SniperFire said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Sarkozy, who on Friday said: "I don't think anyone wants France to be in the situation that Spain is in today, after seven years of Socialist government."
> 
> "Look at Spain," he said. "Do you want the same situation? The issue isn't to frighten. The issue is to look across our border" where unemployment recently hit almost 24.5 per cent.'
> 
> 
> 
> Freeloaders are the same all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Spain did everything you guys said. They had little deficit spending, and they cut taxes.
> 
> And they're still screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spain has had 7 years of Socialist government, and they are trying to blame their 24.5% unemployment on .......   their conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an expert here, but if we have spooky parallels to America, did Spain have a 'Pre-Pelosia Era' equivalent of prosperity as well?
> 
> 
> December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth.
> Publication: Business Wire
> Date: Friday, January 4 2008
> 
> More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent.'
> 
> http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indi cators/economic-indicators/5848024-1.html
Click to expand...




They freaking knee jerked over the train terrorist attack and passed the keys to the house to the socialist losers. They had a blast nuking the country.

Now the conservative *by their standard: have to clean up this horrid economic tsunami that the liberals brought on the country."

Please note though, part of what Sarkozy and  Cameron are facing are their "party down" 
Cameron is really facing a wall of " you did what" ?

Cameron got to ride on Airforce I. What a douche. He got his rocks off on it.  He looks like the complete asshole he is. AND he lied to appear centrist. Cameron is no conservative.


----------



## SniperFire

JoeB131 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm,yeah, all places that went broke after we gave huge tax breaks to billionaires... thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Detroit has been fucked up since the 60's*. Want to run that theory of tax breaks to me?
> Completely mother trucking corrupt for forever. And you want to see slums? YOWZAH.
> 
> Since LBJ. Stop with the tax break to billionaire shit. You embarrass yourself.
> 
> Actually, I should ask, Have you ever been to any of these places that you comment on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the 1960's?  YOu mean when Romney's Father was governor?
> 
> here's the gag.  When you cut taxes without cutting government spending, which is exactly what we've been doing since 1980, you make government spending MORE popular, not less.
> 
> Because you get all these benefits and you don't have to pay for them.
> 
> It's like giving someone an unlimited credit card, really.  That they never have to make payments on.
> 
> This is why Government has grown since the Reagan tax cuts, not shrunk.
Click to expand...


You are one nonsensical Lefty diatribe after another.

Each and every time taxes have been cut on the wealthy whom you envy and hate, tax revenues to the Federal Treasury INCREASED.

It happened when Coolidge did it.  It happened when JFK did it.  It happened when Reagan did it.  It happened when Bush did it.

That politicians decided to OVERSPEND beyond the increased revenues generated by said tax cuts is another issue - one you have attempted to obfuscate and yet have miserable failed.


----------



## Saigon

Erand7899 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are badly mistaken.  US forces landing on Normandy on D-day numbered 73,000 men, on two beaches.  The British landed 61,715.  Canadians landed on the British beaches numbered 22,400.
Click to expand...


Landings were not the only aspect of D-Day. If you factor in the British troops also involved in the air and sea assaults, the British were the largest single force. Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.

So no, I am not badly mistaken.


----------



## SniperFire

Now watch some asshole come along and claim that somebody actually once paid 90% in Federal income taxes in America.


You just watch!

LOL


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Detroit has been fucked up since the 60's*. Want to run that theory of tax breaks to me?
> Completely mother trucking corrupt for forever. And you want to see slums? YOWZAH.
> 
> Since LBJ. Stop with the tax break to billionaire shit. You embarrass yourself.
> 
> Actually, I should ask, Have you ever been to any of these places that you comment on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the 1960's?  YOu mean when Romney's Father was governor?
> 
> here's the gag.  When you cut taxes without cutting government spending, which is exactly what we've been doing since 1980, you make government spending MORE popular, not less.
> 
> Because you get all these benefits and you don't have to pay for them.
> 
> It's like giving someone an unlimited credit card, really.  That they never have to make payments on.
> 
> This is why Government has grown since the Reagan tax cuts, not shrunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one nonsensical Lefty diatribe after another.
> 
> Each and every time taxes have been cut on the wealthy whom you envy and hate, tax revenues to the Federal Treasury INCREASED.
> 
> It happened when Coolidge did it.  It happened when JFK did it.  It happened when Reagan did it.  It happened when Bush did it.
> 
> That politicians decided to OVERSPEND beyond the increased revenues generated by said tax cuts is another issue - one you have attempted to obfuscate and yet have miserable failed.
Click to expand...


Which is wrong.

Tax revenues to the federal treasury increase almost every year regardless of tax cuts or increases.


----------



## SniperFire

By Michael D. LaFaive, published on Nov. 1, 1997

Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?

The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.'


----------



## zeke

Like you Rethugs care about what happens to France. You all hate the French.
Remember when there wasn't "French fries" in the WH dining room. Had to be "Freedom" fries. Weird.

Weird to act like you care if France fails when you have actively wished for that very same failure to occur.

And someone, what the hell does Detroit have to do with Paris?


----------



## SniperFire

Give up, swallow.


LOL


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> Give up, swallow.
> 
> 
> LOL





Well you almost made it.

But your raging homosexual hormones got the best of you..and now you wanna blow me.

No thanks.

But thanks for the offer.. 

Fag.


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> By Michael D. LaFaive, published on Nov. 1, 1997
> 
> Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?
> 
> The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.
> 
> In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.
> 
> Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
> 
> Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
> 
> Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.'





> Federal revenue normally increases every year. In fact, revenues have declined in only five years since 1962. The 35 percent growth between 2003 and 2006 is significant  the last major growth in revenue was between 1997 and 2000, when the economy was booming and federal receipts rose 28.2 percent. But the recent three-year period also comes after three years of decreases, a drop Viard attributes to the 2001 tax cuts and the start of a recession that same year.
> FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin



Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.


----------



## SniperFire

Sallow said:


> [
> Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.



But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman.  Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.

But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that. 

Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?








We don't swallow that.


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman.  Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.
> 
> But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.
> 
> Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't swallow that.
Click to expand...


I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.

This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.


----------



## SniperFire

Sallow said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Bullshit..is well..Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman.  Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.
> 
> But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.
> 
> Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't swallow that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.
> 
> This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.
Click to expand...


You have simply decided to abandon your argument which stated the point I made was - i will quote you - 'bullshit', then?

Did cutting the top marginal tax rate on the rich EXPLODE Federal tax receipts to the treasury in each case persented, or did they not, asswipe?


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> But nobody is arguing that tax receipts were falling, Mr. Strawman.  Except maybe that troll Joe guy, who seems to argue that Federal tax receipts actually FALL when rates are cut on our wealthy investor class.
> 
> But lets finish making a fool out of you before addressing that.
> 
> Are you saying tax cuts to billionaires did not EXPLODE economic growth in each instance presented, driving tax receipts well beyond the present level of receipts at the time - just as planned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't swallow that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno what Joe is saying..but it's pretty clear that the economy is entirely out of whack. Wages have stagnated, we just had a major economic meltdown which required massive bailouts and UE is pretty high. This generally happens when conservative supply side laissez faire ideas are implemented. Happened after Hoover, happened during Reagan and spectacularly happened after George W. Bush. Since the Reagan revolution, income disparity has gone through the roof..and we now have 1% of the US population controlling 40% of America's wealth. This is the type of thing you see happening in third world nations like Mexico and Thailand. It's now happening in China..and they are desperate to make some changes..like enacting minimum wage.
> 
> This is not capitalism..it is corporatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have simply decided to abandon your argument which stated the point I made was - i will quote you - 'bullshit', then?
> 
> Did cutting the top marginal tax rate on the rich EXPLODE Federal tax receipts to the treasury in each case persented, or did they not, asswipe?
Click to expand...


Didn't abandon anything.

And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.

Cutting taxes has done nothing good for the economy..and what it has done is pool wealth into a very few hands. The rich don't invest their own money into projects..they invest other people's money. That's the first rule of getting rich..assume as little risk as possible.


----------



## SniperFire

Sallow said:


> Didn't abandon anything.
> 
> And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.



The tax cuts on the rich, in each instance presented, were done so to explode growth and lift the economy out of doledrums.  In each instance this happened, and in each instance presented,  Federal tax receipts EXPLODED well beyond what they were presently experiencing.


Are you such a partisan hack that you can't even acknowledge simple fact?

Is the fact that Federal tax receipts EXPLODED after each tax cut on the wealthy, as presented, 'bullshit' as you said, or are you wrong?

This is you big chance for credibility, swallow.   Don't blow it.


----------



## Katzndogz

The wealthy French are leaving France, like the wealthy Greeks left Greece when it became confiscatory and liberal.   France will be abandoned to the poor who can't leave and the muslims who will slaughter them.  Of course the poor of France can always save their lives by converting.


----------



## SniperFire

Katzndogz said:


> The wealthy French are leaving France, like the wealthy Greeks left Greece when it became confiscatory and liberal.   France will be abandoned to the poor who can't leave and the muslims who will slaughter them.  Of course the poor of France can always save their lives by converting.



Sounds like Detroit.


And now California.


----------



## dilloduck

Saigon said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are badly mistaken.  US forces landing on Normandy on D-day numbered 73,000 men, on two beaches.  The British landed 61,715.  Canadians landed on the British beaches numbered 22,400.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Landings were not the only aspect of D-Day. If you factor in the British troops also involved in the air and sea assaults, the British were the largest single force. Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
> 
> So no, I am not badly mistaken.
Click to expand...


How did that first expeditionary force work out for Great Britain? Does Dunkirk ring a bell ?


----------



## zeke

> The rich don't invest their own money into projects..they invest other people's money. That's the first rule of getting rich..assume as little risk as possible.




Cracks me up. The asshole rethugs claim so much knowledge of the economy. But they never heard of the OPM idea. Which the rich have done forever. Other peoples money is what you take risks with. Ask the bankers on wall street if that works. It sure does. That is why they remained rich while the rest of us get poorer. They were not playing with their moeny.


----------



## editec

The FRENCH will be the deciders for what happens in France.

I realize this upsets many of you, but France really doesn't  give a _merde_ what a bunch of uninformed American morons think of it.


----------



## JoeB131

SniperFire said:


> You are one nonsensical Lefty diatribe after another.
> 
> Each and every time taxes have been cut on the wealthy whom you envy and hate, tax revenues to the Federal Treasury INCREASED.
> 
> It happened when Coolidge did it.  It happened when JFK did it.  It happened when Reagan did it.  It happened when Bush did it.
> 
> That politicians decided to OVERSPEND beyond the increased revenues generated by said tax cuts is another issue - one you have attempted to obfuscate and yet have miserable failed.



The thing was, when Coolidge and JFK did it, they raised revenues in other places.  For instance, Coolidge cut income taxes but raised tariffs to protect American industries from competition.   Reagan cut taxes, but then eliminated a lot of deductions, creating a net tax increase.  (For instance, the deduction for credit card interest vanished.)  

Bush only saw an "increase" in revenues because property values were inflated by a run-away real estate market.  When it crashed, we all saw the result.  

There's no credible economist who still thinks "Supply Side" works.


----------



## Sallow

SniperFire said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't abandon anything.
> 
> And tax reciepts..as the link pointed out..have been going up each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tax cuts on the rich, in each instance presented, were done so to explode growth and lift the economy out of doledrums.  In each instance this happened, and in each instance presented,  Federal tax receipts EXPLODED well beyond what they were presently experiencing.
> 
> 
> Are you such a partisan hack that you can't even acknowledge simple fact?
> 
> Is the fact that Federal tax receipts EXPLODED after each tax cut on the wealthy, as presented, 'bullshit' as you said, or are you wrong?
> 
> This is you big chance for credibility, swallow.   Don't blow it.
Click to expand...


Your gay tendencies aside..you haven't proved shit.

Sherlock. Um..Gay Sherlock.


----------



## Ariux

Just goes to show, the US should have stayed out of WWII, and certainly not helped France.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The people of Germany will not dig this at all.  This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany.  The European Union is in serious trouble.


----------



## JoeB131

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The people of Germany will not dig this at all.  This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany.  The European Union is in serious trouble.



And again, that might not be a bad thing.  The idea that you have an international currency that no one really controls the value of leads to all sorts of problems.  

The problem with the EU is that it allowed a lot of countries in that never should have been allowed in because their economies were not even on the same level as the main players.  It would be lke we allowed statehood to Mexico, and got them under the dollar, but they still had their own government and economic conditions.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
Click to expand...


The U.S. contingent was the largest, i.e., if one considers the flags, rather than the allegiances.  In other words, the total number of U.S. troops was approximately 73, 000.  The British troops numbered approximately 61,715, and the Canadian troops approximately 21,400, though the latter, of course, were under the flag of the United Kingdom (83,115 total).  These figures also include airborne troops:  15, 000 - U.S.; 7900 - U.K.

Estimations are going to vary as several thousands more of the two largest contingents (U.K. and U.S.)  committed to the invasion did not land until latter.  For example, a total of 40, 000 U.S. troops were supposed to land on Omaha Beach on D-Day.


D-Day, the Battle of Normandy

Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

34, 000 on Omaha Beach?
D-Day : Normandy 1944 - OMAHA BEACH : U.S. Troops

23, 000 on Utah Beach?
D-Day : Normandy 1944 - UTAH BEACH : U.S. Troops


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JoeB131 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Germany will not dig this at all.  This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany.  The European Union is in serious trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, that might not be a bad thing.  The idea that you have an international currency that no one really controls the value of leads to all sorts of problems.
> 
> The problem with the EU is that it allowed a lot of countries in that never should have been allowed in because their economies were not even on the same level as the main players.  It would be lke we allowed statehood to Mexico, and got them under the dollar, but they still had their own government and economic conditions.
Click to expand...


Agree.  Maybe.  That is to say, it's probably good for Germany, not necessarily for the rest of the Union at this point, particularly France.


----------



## freedombecki

Political Junky said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Switzerland was never occupied.
Click to expand...

That's because the German Nazis kept them busy counting all the money and valuables they collected off Jewish people they murdered after taking their clothes off and sending them into mass showers for "delousing," except the gas was so strong it killed all the people taking "showers."


----------



## tigerbob

Political Junky said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really hate to see this kind of ignorance repeated. It's a sad day when people learn their history for Spielbrg movies.
> 
> France was liberated by largely British and Free French forces, with additional troops from Canada, the US, ANZACS and a half dozen other countries such as India.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is like saying New Zealand overthrew Saddam Hussein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D-day was a U.S. led invasion, we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan ungrateful idiots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rebuilding, Marshall Plan, had nothing to do with France, since it wasn't bombed.
Click to expand...


That's somewhat misleading.  The vast majority of damage to France came from ground troops fighting their way through the country for several months, with armored support.


----------



## tigerbob

Jroc said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one person planned the invasion it was a joint effort.. Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly it was, and that is exactly my point.
> 
> Saying the US liberated France is inaccurate to the point of being insulting.
> 
> The UK was the largest single force, and a number of other countries also had large forces involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
Click to expand...


Those are reasonable observations.  European politicians have nobody but themselves to blame for leaving the juggernaut of German rearmament unchecked until it became unstoppable by anything but geography.


----------



## tigerbob

Saigon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...Before the U.S. entered the war; the whole of Europe was occupied except Britain, who was in the process of being pounded by the Germans. doesn't really say much about the European politicians and their military does it? And we are still their? You idiots can fund your own defense.... Ungrateful bastards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, no, not all of Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis. (Off the top of my head: Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Turkey and much of Eastern Europe).
> 
> Secondly, countries like Belgium, Holland, Poland or Denmark could no more defeat the neighbouring superpower on a battlefield than Hawaii could single handedly defeat Japan. *They all fought, but but their defeat was less a failure of politics or military preparation than of geography. *
> 
> Lastly, all European countries DO, and always have, funded their own defense. Many also assist in the defense of US interests as part of NATO. It's called co-operation.
> 
> Why were European armies in Korea, Viet Nam or Iraq?
> 
> To protect US interests, not European interests.
Click to expand...


That's completely incorrect.


----------



## tigerbob

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of the material, ships and equipment were American.  We also bombed the crap out of Germany on a daily basis.  Furthermore, after the initial landing, the U.S. poured millions of troops into the Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes...America saved the world. No one else was involved. It was all America.
> 
> America liberated Poland single handedly, poured troops into the Ukraine and was the only country to ever defeat the Soviet Union on the battlefield.
> 
> Jesus wept.
> 
> btw, it is not 'the' Europe, just 'Europe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we pretty much did save the world.  We provided about 80% of all the material and weapons for prosecuting the war.  We provided the Soviets with all of their trucks, much of their air force and much of their raw materials, food and equipment.  If it wasn't for U.S. aid, U.S. bombing of Germany, and U.S. invasions in Africa, Italy and France, Germany would have wipe Russia out.
Click to expand...


It's absolutely true that the US provided much of the material for fighting the war.  

But...

The U.S. invaded Africa?  That's a bit of a stretch.  The US got there eventually, but the North Africa campaign started in the summer of 1940, a full 18 months before the US entered the war.  The US lost under 20,000 killed wounded or missing, whereas Commonwealth and Free French losses were about a quarter of a million.

The Allied invasion of Italy took place after the German invasion of Russia had failed and been turned back.

As to the bombing of Germany, up until the end of 1943, the British discharge of bombs on Germany exceeded that of the US by 8 to 1.

None of which takes away from the invaluable efforts of the US in turning the tide of the war, but let's not get carried way with "America saved the world".  Hitler make three desperately stupid decisions in WWII.

1.  He failed to invade Britain immediately after Dunkirk.
2.  He declared war on the USA.
2.  He broke his pact with Russia and launched Barbarossa, thereby starting the war on 2 fronts which he himself had said should be avoided at all costs..


----------



## tigerbob

dilloduck said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are badly mistaken.  US forces landing on Normandy on D-day numbered 73,000 men, on two beaches.  The British landed 61,715.  Canadians landed on the British beaches numbered 22,400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Landings were not the only aspect of D-Day. If you factor in the British troops also involved in the air and sea assaults, the British were the largest single force. Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
> 
> So no, I am not badly mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did that first expeditionary force work out for Great Britain? Does Dunkirk ring a bell ?
Click to expand...


Yup, it was 4 years earlier.  Point?


----------



## Big Black Dog

I've been fucked in France...  Is that the same thing we're talking about here?


----------



## Toro

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The people of Germany will not dig this at all.  This development along with the Grecian people's refusal to stay the course with austerity could be the final deal breaker for Germany.  The European Union is in serious trouble.



Higher taxes and spending in France is not a German issue.

Besides, cut through the rhetoric of the election and France is unlikely to change course much regarding their stance on the PIIGS.  France has been dovish from the get go.  That will not change.


----------



## tigerbob

Big Black Dog said:


> I've been fucked in France...  Is that the same thing we're talking about here?



Me too.  Banging of a different nature though, I suspect..


----------



## tigerbob

Britain went through high taxation of the rich in the sixties.  The highest marginal tax rate was 83%.


----------



## Toro

tigerbob said:


> Britain went through high taxation of the rich in the sixties.  The highest marginal tax rate was 83%.



And the highest rate on what Labour called Unearned Income, i.e. rentals, was 98%.


----------



## tigerbob

Toro said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain went through high taxation of the rich in the sixties.  The highest marginal tax rate was 83%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the highest rate on what Labour called Unearned Income, i.e. rentals, was 98%.
Click to expand...


Good God, was it really?  I never knew that.

Have you got a link?  I wouldn't mind reading up on that a bit.


----------



## tigerbob

Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.


----------



## Toro

tigerbob said:


> Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.



Yeah. How did Carroll's not go in?

YNWA


----------



## GHook93

JoeB131 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.
> 
> Lesson won't be learned though.
Click to expand...

Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.


----------



## Toro

GHook93 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.
> 
> Lesson won't be learned though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.
Click to expand...


They've never had "trickle down" in France.


----------



## francoHFW

Jeebus, what a bunch of dumbazz ugly 'Merican Pub dupes...


----------



## JoeB131

GHook93 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plan on voting in a guy who is more leftist than the OWS luntics!
> 
> His platform:
> (1) Spend more, not just a little but a TON more. He is buying votes by promising to gifts to everyone.
> (2) His plan to tackle 10% unemployment. Tax the rich and see them flee the country.
> (3) His plan to grow the economy. Raise taxes on businesses and see them leave the country.
> (4) His plans to win 10% of the immigrate population (this will sound familiar): Amnesty, protections for illegal, social services to illegal and fairer immigration policies (meaning more legal and illegal immigration)
> 
> 
> So his plan is "fix" Frances economy is to tax the rich and business community into leaving the country (remember in Europe with the EU relocation is relatively easy), increase their deficit which is at a critical level 100 fold and head towards Greece's fate and open the boards to Muslim immigration so the leftist will have a voting bloc in the pocket regardless of the fact they despise liberal ideals, France and are overall huge burdens on the welfare state and desire Sharia law in the country.
> 
> This scumbag is leading the polls!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.
> 
> Lesson won't be learned though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.
Click to expand...


Actually, France has a pretty good standard of living compared to ours... 

They have a vastly better health care system.  

The problem with Sarkozy is that he tried to cut the benefits to help his rich buddies, and he got thrown out on his ass today.    

Ooooooh, welll.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.



Can I just say.... I was there... and it fucking rocked! Chelsea own Wembley.... and once we kick the ass of the Krauts, we're gonna own Europe too! Whooooooo hoooooo! Come on you bluuuuuuuuuues!


----------



## California Girl

JoeB131 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the French have figured out "Trickle down" doesn't?
> 
> This ought to be a message to the GOP.  If you keep working against the working class, they will turn around and bite you in the ass.
> 
> Lesson won't be learned though.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, France has a pretty good standard of living compared to ours...
> 
> They have a vastly better health care system.
> 
> The problem with Sarkozy is that he tried to cut the benefits to help his rich buddies, and he got thrown out on his ass today.
> 
> Ooooooh, welll.
Click to expand...




I wish I could be arsed to go find a facepalm pic but you're not even worth that.


----------



## tigerbob

California Girl said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just say.... I was there... and it fucking rocked! Chelsea own Wembley.... and once we kick the ass of the Krauts, we're gonna own Europe too! Whooooooo hoooooo! Come on you bluuuuuuuuuues!
Click to expand...




And what made you decide you're a Chelski fan?


----------



## peach174

Yes and in France gas costs 8.00 a gallon.
Income tax is 40%
Corp. tax is 33.33%
Sales tax 19.60%
That's 59.60% in taxes,between Fed and sales tax.
Food is expensive and so is clothes.
Their is very little jobs and no job growth.
And all because of gov. entitlements and health care.

The Majority of Americans do not want this.


----------



## JoeB131

peach174 said:


> Yes and in France gas costs 8.00 a gallon.
> Income tax is 40%
> Corp. tax is 33.33%
> Sales tax 19.60%
> That's 59.60% in taxes,between Fed and sales tax.
> Food is expensive and so is clothes.
> Their is very little jobs and no job growth.
> And all because of gov. entitlements and health care.
> 
> The Majority of Americans do not want this.



I agree, we do not want to go the way of France.  

But when you have the big corporations moving the good jobs out of the west and to the east, and driving down wages in this country so CEO can have bigger salaries, you are going to get more demand for that sort of thing.  

Incidently, the French spend less per capita on health care than we do. It's just that no one is making a profit off of it.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just say.... I was there... and it fucking rocked! Chelsea own Wembley.... and once we kick the ass of the Krauts, we're gonna own Europe too! Whooooooo hoooooo! Come on you bluuuuuuuuuues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what made you decide you're a Chelski fan?
Click to expand...


Tradition. Most of my family on the English side have, historically, supported Chelsea - and a few Spurs fans.... I am passionate about CFC. Getting invited to the final was just damned awesome!


----------



## Toro

tigerbob said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lousy FA Cup result today BTW.  YNWA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just say.... I was there... and it fucking rocked! Chelsea own Wembley.... and once we kick the ass of the Krauts, we're gonna own Europe too! Whooooooo hoooooo! Come on you bluuuuuuuuuues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what made you decide you're a Chelski fan?
Click to expand...


She doesn't know much about football.  

EDIT 



California Girl said:


> Tradition. Most of my family on the English side have, historically, supported Chelsea - and a few Spurs fans.... I am passionate about CFC. Getting invited to the final was just damned awesome!



OK, I take it back!

It's hard to find a genuine Chelsea fan these days!


----------



## Toro

dp


----------



## Toro

California Girl said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, France has a pretty good standard of living compared to ours...
> 
> They have a vastly better health care system.
> 
> The problem with Sarkozy is that he tried to cut the benefits to help his rich buddies, and he got thrown out on his ass today.
> 
> Ooooooh, welll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could be arsed to go find a facepalm pic but you're not even worth that.
Click to expand...


It requires a double facepalm.


----------



## francoHFW

They spend about 10% of Gdp on health care, we almost 18%- ridiculous Pub system....Health Reform and a living wage (10.50) here would just about do us...

   Austerity is Neocon crappe- a lttle less austerity, a little more stimulus is in order.

France is NOT fucked...


----------



## tigerbob

California Girl said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just say.... I was there... and it fucking rocked! Chelsea own Wembley.... and once we kick the ass of the Krauts, we're gonna own Europe too! Whooooooo hoooooo! Come on you bluuuuuuuuuues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what made you decide you're a Chelski fan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tradition. Most of my family on the English side have, historically, supported Chelsea - and a few Spurs fans.... I am passionate about CFC. Getting invited to the final was just damned awesome!
Click to expand...


In that case I will grudgingly admit you have a reason, but I do still not approve your choice.

On the other hand, I wish you luck against Bayern.


----------



## Liberty

The French are clearly the dumbest nationality on the planet.


----------



## Ariux

Liberty said:


> The French are clearly the dumbest nationality on the planet.



You forgot about all the countries in the world dominated by people who aren't white or yellow?


----------



## freedombecki

francoHFW said:


> Screw conservatives and austerity that doesn't work. Especially screw Pubs who got us in this mess, and don't mind keeping us there to get power back, to steal again.


Wow, Ambassador.

Some of us conservatives love France, and my middle name was given me by my mother's mother, whose mother was either French or her best friend was.

I've always thought of France as a lovely country with very intelligent people, one of who changed history for the better--Louis Pasteur, by finding a way to rid the world of a dreaded, disfiguring disease, Smallpox, by administering serum of cowpox, a light disease that gave immunity to the dairy farmer and milkmaids of France, who he observed never got smallpox.

The world owes a lot to France, and the French people have historically been people who love other cultures, and live fearlessly for love.

You sound like such a bitter man here sometimes, I'm sorry for whatever caused you such unhappiness to carry it with you wherever you go. I think you should take a week or two back to France, climb the Eiffel tower, tip a glass of French wine, and get refreshed in the beauty and majesty of the French countryside.

Vive la France!


----------



## JoeB131

California Girl said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather they only know trickle up poverty and that hasn't worked, but the liberal philosophy is the definition of insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, France has a pretty good standard of living compared to ours...
> 
> They have a vastly better health care system.
> 
> The problem with Sarkozy is that he tried to cut the benefits to help his rich buddies, and he got thrown out on his ass today.
> 
> Ooooooh, welll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could be arsed to go find a facepalm pic but you're not even worth that.
Click to expand...


Hey, the Austerians and Supply SIders are finally being exposed as the snake-oil salesmen they are... and good riddance.  

Cameron and Merkel are going to be joining Sarkozy on the unemployment line soon enough.


----------



## peach174

If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
The won't be able to afford anything.


----------



## California Girl

tigerbob said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what made you decide you're a Chelski fan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition. Most of my family on the English side have, historically, supported Chelsea - and a few Spurs fans.... I am passionate about CFC. Getting invited to the final was just damned awesome!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case I will grudgingly admit you have a reason, but I do still not approve your choice.
> 
> On the other hand, I wish you luck against Bayern.
Click to expand...


Well, I think we'll need it, with so many of our top players banned.  But, I have total confidence that we'll take the trophy.


----------



## California Girl

Liberty said:


> The French are clearly the dumbest nationality on the planet.



No, they aren't... they - like us - refuse to accept very straightfoward facts and prefer to 'blame' others for their woes. In that, they are much like most other countries.


----------



## JoeB131

peach174 said:


> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.



Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated too much of the wealth.  

Which is what they should have been doing all along.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

francoHFW said:


> They spend about 10% of Gdp on health care, we almost 18%- ridiculous Pub system....Health Reform and a living wage (10.50) here would just about do us...
> 
> Austerity is Neocon crappe- a lttle less austerity, a little more stimulus is in order.
> 
> France is NOT fucked...



You think Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare are "pub" systems?

LOL

What a retard!


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They spend about 10% of Gdp on health care, we almost 18%- ridiculous Pub system....Health Reform and a living wage (10.50) here would just about do us...
> 
> Austerity is Neocon crappe- a lttle less austerity, a little more stimulus is in order.
> 
> France is NOT fucked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare are "pub" systems?
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a retard!
Click to expand...


Well, Medicare Part C and D were Republican ideas, to let private coporations profit off the system, and the costs have been spiralling upwards ever since.  

And ObamaCare was a Republican Idea, when they used to call it "RomneyCare".


----------



## Wry Catcher

And the pendulum swings once again.  The hard right Republicans and the wackos whose constant attack on liberals and progressives, their callous disregard for the working poor, their attacks on public employees and the right of workers to bargain collectively will bring upon themselves what they fear most - the rise of the left.

PS  That some smart and educated people do not understand this is perplexing.  How they can tolerate being seen as part of a set which includes Willow Tree and CrusaderFrank, Stephanie and Grampa Murked U boggles the mind.


----------



## peach174

JoeB131 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated too much of the wealth.
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
Click to expand...


The top richest own 40% of the planets wealth.
That still leaves 60% of the rest of us that are going to have to pay the debts off.

If you took all of the American's money who make 250,000.00 and up, you will get 980 billion. It leaves them pennyless and the rest of us with no jobs, and we will still have 1/3 of a trillion dollars that needs to be paid off.
Where will that 1/3 come from when we all don't have any jobs?


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated *too much of the wealth.*
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
Click to expand...


Who'll decide how much people should make? People like you? There is no set amount of wealth idiot, yeah we need some tyrannical government to tell us how much we are allowed to make. Like I said before youre a joke and a fraud....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijhre9T_bv4&feature=related]Reagan - Fat Man Thin Man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wry Catcher

peach174 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated too much of the wealth.
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top richest own 40% of the planets wealth.
> That still leaves 60% of the rest of us that are going to have to pay the debts off.
> 
> If you took all of the American's money who make 250,000.00 and up, you will get 980 billion. It leaves them pennyless and the rest of us with no jobs, and we will still have 1/3 of a trillion dollars that needs to be paid off.
> Where will that 1/3 come from when we all don't have any jobs?
Click to expand...


Please see my postscript added to the post 121 above.


----------



## Jroc

Wry Catcher said:


> And the pendulum swings once again.  The hard right Republicans and the wackos whose constant attack on liberals and progressives, their callous disregard for the working poor, their attacks on public employees and the right of workers to bargain collectively will bring upon themselves what they fear most - *the rise of the left.*
> 
> PS  That some smart and educated people do not understand this is perplexing.  How they can tolerate being seen as part of a set which includes Willow Tree and CrusaderFrank, Stephanie and Grampa Murked U boggles the mind.



 We've seen and we don't like it, and that noted "right winger" FDR was against public sector unions.


----------



## GHook93

This scumbag comes in and wants to raise the so-called rich to a tax bracket ot 75%!!! See his reasoning



> BBC News - French election: Hollande wants 75% tax on top earners
> "Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.



Um yes it is and you will find out quickly that other countries (hopefully America), will welcome these people unjustly under attack by a Socialist Tyrant!!!

He also wants to WACK the French Corporations! LOL, does he not know that corporations and RICH people employ the everyday Frenchman? He will chase both out of the country. What you will be left with is a unemployed young Frenchman, Muslim immigrants bankrupting the welfare state, Debt that will bankrupt the country and economy left in shabbles! 

Why do the French always act, like, well, French?


----------



## Toro

We should welcome the French rich and their corporations with open arms.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> And the pendulum swings once again.  The hard right Republicans and the wackos whose constant attack on liberals and progressives, their callous disregard for the working poor, their attacks on public employees and the right of workers to bargain collectively will bring upon themselves what they fear most - the rise of the left.
> 
> PS  That some smart and educated people do not understand this is perplexing.  How they can tolerate being seen as part of a set which includes Willow Tree and CrusaderFrank, Stephanie and Grampa Murked U boggles the mind.



Your stupid economic ideas have a 100% guaranteed fail rate

France is fucked. Hollande will drive the capital and entrepreneurs out and any hope of growth out with them


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> We should welcome the French rich and their corporations with open arms.



1%ers always welcome!


----------



## JoeB131

peach174 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated too much of the wealth.
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top richest own 40% of the planets wealth.
> That still leaves 60% of the rest of us that are going to have to pay the debts off.
> 
> If you took all of the American's money who make 250,000.00 and up, you will get 980 billion. It leaves them pennyless and the rest of us with no jobs, and we will still have 1/3 of a trillion dollars that needs to be paid off.
> Where will that 1/3 come from when we all don't have any jobs?
Click to expand...


The problem you subscribe to here, besides bad math, is that you work on the assumption that we'd have no jobs if there were no rich people.  

Which of course, is crap. Investment doesn't create jobs, consumer demand does.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we and all the other countries, continue to over tax, over borrow and overspend, what happens to our future generations that will have to pay this debt off?
> The won't be able to afford anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated *too much of the wealth.*
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who'll decide how much people should make? People like you? There is no set amount of wealth idiot, yeah we need some tyrannical government to tell us how much we are allowed to make. Like I said before youre a joke and a fraud....
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


Actually, if we even went back to the tax rates we had under Reagan, we'd probalby be okay.  

You see, what you forget is that Reagan cut taxes, but he also increased spending, which is what got us out of the 1981 recession.   Then he realized he had to raise taxes, which is what he did.  

We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid a top marginal tax rate of 92%.  So if you want to use history as a guide, maybe we should go back to that.


----------



## Katzndogz

The Rich French aren't going to come here!   At least not as long as we have a socialist as presidebt.    Europe is going to be embroiled in a very serious war in a relatively short time.   The rich are probably going to gravitate to only one nation where it will be able to be a majority and protect themselves.   As long as the rich are a minority their rights will always be crushed.   Right now the French wealthy are running off to England, but that's just temporary.
'}


----------



## Political Junky

Katzndogz said:


> The Rich French aren't going to come here!   At least not as long as we have a socialist as presidebt.    Europe is going to be embroiled in a very serious war in a relatively short time.   The rich are probably going to gravitate to only one nation where it will be able to be a majority and protect themselves.   As long as the rich are a minority their rights will always be crushed.   Right now the French wealthy are running off to England, but that's just temporary.
> '}


England, where they'll pay higher taxes that they would in the US?


----------



## Toro

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the pendulum swings once again.  The hard right Republicans and the wackos whose constant attack on liberals and progressives, their callous disregard for the working poor, their attacks on public employees and the right of workers to bargain collectively will bring upon themselves what they fear most - the rise of the left.
> 
> PS  That some smart and educated people do not understand this is perplexing.  How they can tolerate being seen as part of a set which includes Willow Tree and CrusaderFrank, Stephanie and Grampa Murked U boggles the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupid economic ideas have a 100% guaranteed fail rate
> 
> France is fucked. Hollande will drive the capital and entrepreneurs out and any hope of growth out with them
Click to expand...


There are entrepreneurs in France?


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just tax the people who've already accumulated *too much of the wealth.*
> 
> Which is what they should have been doing all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who'll decide how much people should make? People like you? There is no set amount of wealth idiot, yeah we need some tyrannical government to tell us how much we are allowed to make. Like I said before youre a joke and a fraud....
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if we even went back to the tax rates we had under Reagan, we'd probalby be okay.
> 
> You see, what you forget is that Reagan cut taxes, but he also increased spending, which is what got us out of the 1981 recession.   Then he realized he had to raise taxes, which is what he did.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid a top marginal tax rate of 92%.  So if you want to use history as a guide, maybe we should go back to that.
Click to expand...


We are more prosperous now than we were in 1961. 

True story.


----------



## tigerbob

Political Junky said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rich French aren't going to come here!   At least not as long as we have a socialist as presidebt.    Europe is going to be embroiled in a very serious war in a relatively short time.   The rich are probably going to gravitate to only one nation where it will be able to be a majority and protect themselves.   As long as the rich are a minority their rights will always be crushed.   Right now the French wealthy are running off to England, but that's just temporary.
> '}
> 
> 
> 
> England, where they'll pay higher taxes that they would in the US?
Click to expand...


I really miss English taxes.


----------



## Political Junky

tigerbob said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rich French aren't going to come here!   At least not as long as we have a socialist as presidebt.    Europe is going to be embroiled in a very serious war in a relatively short time.   The rich are probably going to gravitate to only one nation where it will be able to be a majority and protect themselves.   As long as the rich are a minority their rights will always be crushed.   Right now the French wealthy are running off to England, but that's just temporary.
> '}
> 
> 
> 
> England, where they'll pay higher taxes that they would in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really miss English taxes.
Click to expand...

Things have changed since the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## tigerbob

Political Junky said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> England, where they'll pay higher taxes that they would in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really miss English taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things have changed since the Boston Tea Party.
Click to expand...


Before my time.


----------



## JoeB131

Katzndogz said:


> The Rich French aren't going to come here!   At least not as long as we have a socialist as presidebt.    Europe is going to be embroiled in a very serious war in a relatively short time.   The rich are probably going to gravitate to only one nation where it will be able to be a majority and protect themselves.   As long as the rich are a minority their rights will always be crushed.   Right now the French wealthy are running off to England, but that's just temporary.
> '}



The problem with that is, there's really nowhere for these fools to run.  

They could go to the UK, but Cameron and his bunch of Austerians aren't going to last a lot longer.  Same thing with Germany. (Now that would be a laugh, rich French folks going to Germany).  Merkel's a dead woman walking.  

The fact is, Austerity has failed in Europe, as anyone with a lick of sense would tell you it would.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who'll decide how much people should make? People like you? There is no set amount of wealth idiot, yeah we need some tyrannical government to tell us how much we are allowed to make. Like I said before youre a joke and a fraud....
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if we even went back to the tax rates we had under Reagan, we'd probalby be okay.
> 
> You see, what you forget is that Reagan cut taxes, but he also increased spending, which is what got us out of the 1981 recession.   Then he realized he had to raise taxes, which is what he did.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid a top marginal tax rate of 92%.  So if you want to use history as a guide, maybe we should go back to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are more prosperous now than we were in 1961.
> 
> True story.
Click to expand...


No, we're not.  

Back in the 1960's, we had an honest to God Middle Class.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if we even went back to the tax rates we had under Reagan, we'd probalby be okay.
> 
> You see, what you forget is that Reagan cut taxes, but he also increased spending, which is what got us out of the 1981 recession.   Then he realized he had to raise taxes, which is what he did.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the wealthy paid a top marginal tax rate of 92%.  So if you want to use history as a guide, maybe we should go back to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are more prosperous now than we were in 1961.
> 
> True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not.
> 
> Back in the 1960's, we had an honest to God Middle Class.
Click to expand...


And we have an honest to God middle class today too, except today's honest to God middle class has a 1500 sq ft home that is 40% bigger than 50 years ago, two cars in the driveway, lives much longer because of better medical care, works less in less dangerous environs, has several TVs with 200 channels, has access to the Internet which didn't exist 50 years ago, may or may not have granite countertops, can make a phone call almost anywhere in the country with a computer he keeps in his pocket that can store 10,000 songs he can listen to anywhere, eats better, eats out more, can get on an airplane for about 20% of the inflation-adjusted cost compared to 50 years ago, and so on, and so on, and so on.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are more prosperous now than we were in 1961.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not.
> 
> Back in the 1960's, we had an honest to God Middle Class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we have an honest to God middle class today too, except today's honest to God middle class has a 1500 sq ft home that is 40% bigger than 50 years ago, two cars in the driveway, lives much longer because of better medical care, works less in less dangerous environs, has several TVs with 200 channels, has access to the Internet which didn't exist 50 years ago, may or may not have granite countertops, can make a phone call almost anywhere in the country with a computer he keeps in his pocket that can store 10,000 songs he can listen to anywhere, eats better, eats out more, can get on an airplane for about 20% of the inflation-adjusted cost compared to 50 years ago, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Click to expand...


More advanced technology does NOT equal more prosperous.  

And a lot of those advancements happened because of liberal insistance. Yes, workplaces are safer, but guess who keeps trying to dismantle OSHA? 

On the more bread and butter issue, not so much.  When I grew up, my father could work his good union  job (everyone in the neighborhood had one) and raise five kids and have a summer home in Wisconsin.   Mom could stay home or work part time if she wanted to.  

Today, most of my siblings have limited themselves to two kids,  both parents work (or worked before their kids got out of the house). 

Yes, you have more goodies now, but you have more debt and you are working a lot harder to keep up with it.  

But the Wall Street Parasites are getting fat, and that's all that matters.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not.
> 
> Back in the 1960's, we had an honest to God Middle Class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have an honest to God middle class today too, except today's honest to God middle class has a 1500 sq ft home that is 40% bigger than 50 years ago, two cars in the driveway, lives much longer because of better medical care, works less in less dangerous environs, has several TVs with 200 channels, has access to the Internet which didn't exist 50 years ago, may or may not have granite countertops, can make a phone call almost anywhere in the country with a computer he keeps in his pocket that can store 10,000 songs he can listen to anywhere, eats better, eats out more, can get on an airplane for about 20% of the inflation-adjusted cost compared to 50 years ago, and so on, and so on, and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More advanced technology does NOT equal more prosperous.
> 
> And a lot of those advancements happened because of liberal insistance. Yes, workplaces are safer, but guess who keeps trying to dismantle OSHA?
> 
> On the more bread and butter issue, not so much.  When I grew up, my father could work his good union  job (everyone in the neighborhood had one) and raise five kids and have a summer home in Wisconsin.   Mom could stay home or work part time if she wanted to.
> 
> Today, most of my siblings have limited themselves to two kids,  both parents work (or worked before their kids got out of the house).
> 
> Yes, you have more goodies now, but you have more debt and you are working a lot harder to keep up with it.
> 
> But the Wall Street Parasites are getting fat, and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...


All wealth creation is a function of technological advancement. All of it. 

Prosperity means being able to afford more and having a wider range of choices. People live in bigger and better houses, they drive better cars, they eat better food, have a much wider range of leisure options, and so on. People have far more choices, can do more and have more time to do it than they did 50 years ago. 

And no, people don't work harder than they do 50 years ago. They work less. And they work in less dangerous circumstances.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we have an honest to God middle class today too, except today's honest to God middle class has a 1500 sq ft home that is 40% bigger than 50 years ago, two cars in the driveway, lives much longer because of better medical care, works less in less dangerous environs, has several TVs with 200 channels, has access to the Internet which didn't exist 50 years ago, may or may not have granite countertops, can make a phone call almost anywhere in the country with a computer he keeps in his pocket that can store 10,000 songs he can listen to anywhere, eats better, eats out more, can get on an airplane for about 20% of the inflation-adjusted cost compared to 50 years ago, and so on, and so on, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More advanced technology does NOT equal more prosperous.
> 
> And a lot of those advancements happened because of liberal insistance. Yes, workplaces are safer, but guess who keeps trying to dismantle OSHA?
> 
> On the more bread and butter issue, not so much.  When I grew up, my father could work his good union  job (everyone in the neighborhood had one) and raise five kids and have a summer home in Wisconsin.   Mom could stay home or work part time if she wanted to.
> 
> Today, most of my siblings have limited themselves to two kids,  both parents work (or worked before their kids got out of the house).
> 
> Yes, you have more goodies now, but you have more debt and you are working a lot harder to keep up with it.
> 
> But the Wall Street Parasites are getting fat, and that's all that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All wealth creation is a function of technological advancement. All of it.
> 
> Prosperity means being able to afford more and having a wider range of choices. People live in bigger and better houses, they drive better cars, they eat better food, have a much wider range of leisure options, and so on. People have far more choices, can do more and have more time to do it than they did 50 years ago.
> 
> And no, people don't work harder than they do 50 years ago. They work less. And they work in less dangerous circumstances.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what kind of fucking alternative universe do you live in?  Oh, that's right, one where you made out when other people lost their houses.  

Americans take less vacation than any nation in the industrialized world.  

The American middle class has declined, after 30 years of the Plutocrats making war on it.  Poverty is not improved because you have an I-Phone.


----------



## Artevelde

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More advanced technology does NOT equal more prosperous.
> 
> And a lot of those advancements happened because of liberal insistance. Yes, workplaces are safer, but guess who keeps trying to dismantle OSHA?
> 
> On the more bread and butter issue, not so much.  When I grew up, my father could work his good union  job (everyone in the neighborhood had one) and raise five kids and have a summer home in Wisconsin.   Mom could stay home or work part time if she wanted to.
> 
> Today, most of my siblings have limited themselves to two kids,  both parents work (or worked before their kids got out of the house).
> 
> Yes, you have more goodies now, but you have more debt and you are working a lot harder to keep up with it.
> 
> But the Wall Street Parasites are getting fat, and that's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All wealth creation is a function of technological advancement. All of it.
> 
> Prosperity means being able to afford more and having a wider range of choices. People live in bigger and better houses, they drive better cars, they eat better food, have a much wider range of leisure options, and so on. People have far more choices, can do more and have more time to do it than they did 50 years ago.
> 
> And no, people don't work harder than they do 50 years ago. They work less. And they work in less dangerous circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what kind of fucking alternative universe do you live in?  Oh, that's right, one where you made out when other people lost their houses.
> 
> Americans take less vacation than any nation in the industrialized world.
> 
> The American middle class has declined, after 30 years of the Plutocrats making war on it.  Poverty is not improved because you have an I-Phone.
Click to expand...


What do you call poverty?
Is it being poor, i.e. not having sufficient means to house, clothe and feed oneself?
Or is it having less than certain other people? (back in the old days when words still meant something we used to call that envy)


----------



## JoeB131

Artevelde said:


> What do you call poverty?
> Is it being poor, i.e. not having sufficient means to house, clothe and feed oneself?
> Or is it having less than certain other people? (back in the old days when words still meant something we used to call that envy)



I think it's a matter of fair division of the wealth.  

In 1980, Average CEO pay in the US was 44 times what a line worker made  

Today, Average CEO Pay is 475 times what a line worker makes. 

It's not that our CEO's have gotten smarter, no matter how many glossy magazines they publish stroking themselves.  

Clearly, the Middle Class has declined since 1980.  Some of this is due to globalization, but a lot of it is due to greed.  It's the problem of a society that has elevated capital above labor.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More advanced technology does NOT equal more prosperous.
> 
> And a lot of those advancements happened because of liberal insistance. Yes, workplaces are safer, but guess who keeps trying to dismantle OSHA?
> 
> On the more bread and butter issue, not so much.  When I grew up, my father could work his good union  job (everyone in the neighborhood had one) and raise five kids and have a summer home in Wisconsin.   Mom could stay home or work part time if she wanted to.
> 
> Today, most of my siblings have limited themselves to two kids,  both parents work (or worked before their kids got out of the house).
> 
> Yes, you have more goodies now, but you have more debt and you are working a lot harder to keep up with it.
> 
> But the Wall Street Parasites are getting fat, and that's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All wealth creation is a function of technological advancement. All of it.
> 
> Prosperity means being able to afford more and having a wider range of choices. People live in bigger and better houses, they drive better cars, they eat better food, have a much wider range of leisure options, and so on. People have far more choices, can do more and have more time to do it than they did 50 years ago.
> 
> And no, people don't work harder than they do 50 years ago. They work less. And they work in less dangerous circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what kind of fucking alternative universe do you live in?  Oh, that's right, one where you made out when other people lost their houses.
> 
> Americans take less vacation than any nation in the industrialized world.
> 
> The American middle class has declined, after 30 years of the Plutocrats making war on it.  Poverty is not improved because you have an I-Phone.
Click to expand...


Americans work less than they did 50 years ago. That's a statistical fact. How much they work in France now is irrelevant. 

The middle class has not declined. That is also a statistical fact. The proportion of those classified as middle class has declined slightly compared to 30 years ago, but given that all cohorts' incomes have risen during that time means that they are still better off than in 1980. 

Equating the health of unions with the middle class is a false equivalency.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Americans work less than they did 50 years ago. That's a statistical fact. How much they work in France now is irrelevant.
> 
> The middle class has not declined. That is also a statistical fact. The proportion of those classified as middle class has declined slightly compared to 30 years ago, but given that all cohorts' incomes have risen during that time means that they are still better off than in 1980.
> 
> Equating the health of unions with the middle class is a false equivalency.



Quite the contrary, I think that the two paralell each other.  

As union membership rose, so did the middle class, and as it's declined, so has the middle class.  



> Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
> 
> In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.
> 
> Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
> 
> But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.



How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011


----------

